International Scholarly Research NetworkISRN EcologyVolume 2011, Article ID 402647, 20 pagesdoi:10.5402/2011/402647

Review Article

Heavy Metals in Contaminated Soils: A Review of Sources,Chemistry, Risks and Best Available Strategies for Remediation

Raymond A. Wuana1 and Felix E. Okieimen2

1 Analytical Environmental Chemistry Research Group, Department of Chemistry, Benue State University,Makurdi 970001, Nigeria

2 Research Laboratory, GeoEnvironmental & Climate Change Adaptation Research Centre, University of Benin,Benin City 300283, Nigeria

Correspondence should be addressed to Raymond A. Wuana, rayway73@yahoo.com

Received 19 July 2011; Accepted 23 August 2011

Academic Editors: B. Montuelle and A. D. Steinman

Copyright © 2011 R. A. Wuana and F. E. Okieimen. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative CommonsAttribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work isproperly cited.

Scattered literature is harnessed to critically review the possible sources, chemistry, potential biohazards and best availableremedial strategies for a number of heavy metals (lead, chromium, arsenic, zinc, cadmium, copper, mercury and nickel)commonly found in contaminated soils. The principles, advantages and disadvantages of immobilization, soil washing andphytoremediation techniques which are frequently listed among the best demonstrated available technologies for cleaning upheavy metal contaminated sites are presented. Remediation of heavy metal contaminated soils is necessary to reduce the associatedrisks, make the land resource available for agricultural production, enhance food security and scale down land tenure problemsarising from changes in the land use pattern.

1. Introduction

Soils may become contaminated by the accumulation ofheavy metals and metalloids through emissions from therapidly expanding industrial areas, mine tailings, disposal ofhigh metal wastes, leaded gasoline and paints, land applica-tion of fertilizers, animal manures, sewage sludge, pesticides,wastewater irrigation, coal combustion residues, spillage ofpetrochemicals, and atmospheric deposition [1, 2]. Heavymetals constitute an ill-defined group of inorganic chemicalhazards, and those most commonly found at contaminatedsites are lead (Pb), chromium (Cr), arsenic (As), zinc (Zn),cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), mercury (Hg), and nickel (Ni)[3]. Soils are the major sink for heavy metals released intothe environment by aforementioned anthropogenic activitiesand unlike organic contaminants which are oxidized tocarbon (IV) oxide by microbial action, most metals do notundergo microbial or chemical degradation [4], and theirtotal concentration in soils persists for a long time after theirintroduction [5]. Changes in their chemical forms (specia-tion) and bioavailability are, however, possible. The presence

of toxic metals in soil can severely inhibit the biodegradationof organic contaminants [6]. Heavy metal contamination ofsoil may pose risks and hazards to humans and the ecosystemthrough: direct ingestion or contact with contaminatedsoil, the food chain (soil-plant-human or soil-plant-animal-human), drinking of contaminated ground water, reductionin food quality (safety and marketability) via phytotoxicity,reduction in land usability for agricultural production caus-ing food insecurity, and land tenure problems [7–9].

The adequate protection and restoration of soil ecosys-tems contaminated by heavy metals require their character-ization and remediation. Contemporary legislation respect-ing environmental protection and public health, at bothnational and international levels, are based on data that char-acterize chemical properties of environmental phenomena,especially those that reside in our food chain [10]. Whilesoil characterization would provide an insight into heavymetal speciation and bioavailability, attempt at remediationof heavy metal contaminated soils would entail knowledgeof the source of contamination, basic chemistry, and envi-ronmental and associated health effects (risks) of these heavy

2 ISRN Ecology

metals. Risk assessment is an effective scientific tool whichenables decision makers to manage sites so contaminated ina cost-effective manner while preserving public and ecosys-tem health [11].

Immobilization, soil washing, and phytoremediationtechniques are frequently listed among the best demon-strated available technologies (BDATs) for remediation ofheavy metal-contaminated sites [3]. In spite of their cost-effectiveness and environment friendliness, field applicationsof these technologies have only been reported in developedcountries. In most developing countries, these are yet to b-ecome commercially available technologies possibly due tothe inadequate awareness of their inherent advantages andprinciples of operation. With greater awareness by the gov-ernments and the public of the implications of contaminatedsoils on human and animal health, there has been increasinginterest amongst the scientific community in the develop-ment of technologies to remediate contaminated sites [12].In developing countries with great population density andscarce funds available for environmental restoration, low-cost and ecologically sustainable remedial options are re-quired to restore contaminated lands so as to reduce theassociated risks, make the land resource available for agri-cultural production, enhance food security, and scale downland tenure problems.

In this paper, scattered literature is utilized to review thepossible sources of contamination, basic chemistry, and theassociated environmental and health risks of priority heavymetals (Pb, Cr, As, Zn, Cd, Cu, Hg, and Ni) which canprovide insight into heavy metal speciation, bioavailability,and hence selection of appropriate remedial options. Theprinciples, advantages, and disadvantages of immobilization,soil washing, and phytoremediation techniques as optionsfor soil cleanup are also presented.

2. Sources of Heavy Metals inContaminated Soils

Heavy metals occur naturally in the soil environment fromthe pedogenetic processes of weathering of parent materialsat levels that are regarded as trace (<1000 mg kg−1) andrarely toxic [10, 13]. Due to the disturbance and accelerationof nature’s slowly occurring geochemical cycle of metalsby man, most soils of rural and urban environments mayaccumulate one or more of the heavy metals above definedbackground values high enough to cause risks to humanhealth, plants, animals, ecosystems, or other media [14]. Theheavy metals essentially become contaminants in the soilenvironments because (i) their rates of generation via man-made cycles are more rapid relative to natural ones, (ii) theybecome transferred from mines to random environmentallocations where higher potentials of direct exposure occur,(iii) the concentrations of the metals in discarded productsare relatively high compared to those in the receivingenvironment, and (iv) the chemical form (species) in whicha metal is found in the receiving environmental system mayrender it more bioavailable [14]. A simple mass balance of

the heavy metals in the soil can be expressed as follows[15, 16]:

Mtotal =(Mp + Ma + Mf + Mag + Mow + Mip

)− (Mcr + Ml),

(1)

where “M” is the heavy metal, “p” is the parent material, “a”is the atmospheric deposition, “ f ” is the fertilizer sources,“ag” are the agrochemical sources, “ow” are the organic wastesources, “ip” are other inorganic pollutants, “cr” is crop re-moval, and “l” is the losses by leaching, volatilization, and soforth. It is projected that the anthropogenic emission into theatmosphere, for several heavy metals, is one-to-three ordersof magnitude higher than natural fluxes [17]. Heavy metalsin the soil from anthropogenic sources tend to be moremobile, hence bioavailable than pedogenic, or lithogenicones [18, 19]. Metal-bearing solids at contaminated sites canoriginate from a wide variety of anthropogenic sources in theform of metal mine tailings, disposal of high metal wastesin improperly protected landfills, leaded gasoline and lead-based paints, land application of fertilizer, animal manures,biosolids (sewage sludge), compost, pesticides, coal combus-tion residues, petrochemicals, and atmospheric deposition[1, 2, 20] are discussed hereunder.

2.1. Fertilizers. Historically, agriculture was the first majorhuman influence on the soil [21]. To grow and complete thelifecycle, plants must acquire not only macronutrients (N, P,K, S, Ca, and Mg), but also essential micronutrients. Somesoils are deficient in the heavy metals (such as Co, Cu, Fe, Mn,Mo, Ni, and Zn) that are essential for healthy plant growth[22], and crops may be supplied with these as an additionto the soil or as a foliar spray. Cereal crops grown on Cu-deficient soils are occasionally treated with Cu as an additionto the soil, and Mn may similarly be supplied to cereal androot crops. Large quantities of fertilizers are regularly addedto soils in intensive farming systems to provide adequate N,P, and K for crop growth. The compounds used to supplythese elements contain trace amounts of heavy metals (e.g.,Cd and Pb) as impurities, which, after continued fertilizer,application may significantly increase their content in the soil[23]. Metals, such as Cd and Pb, have no known physiologicalactivity. Application of certain phosphatic fertilizers inadver-tently adds Cd and other potentially toxic elements to thesoil, including F, Hg, and Pb [24].

2.2. Pesticides. Several common pesticides used fairly exten-sively in agriculture and horticulture in the past containedsubstantial concentrations of metals. For instance in the re-cent past, about 10% of the chemicals have approved foruse as insecticides and fungicides in UK were based oncompounds which contain Cu, Hg, Mn, Pb, or Zn. Examplesof such pesticides are copper-containing fungicidal sprayssuch as Bordeaux mixture (copper sulphate) and copperoxychloride [23]. Lead arsenate was used in fruit orchardsfor many years to control some parasitic insects. Arsenic-containing compounds were also used extensively to controlcattle ticks and to control pests in banana in New Zealand

ISRN Ecology 3

and Australia, timbers have been preserved with formula-tions of Cu, Cr, and As (CCA), and there are now manyderelict sites where soil concentrations of these elementsgreatly exceed background concentrations. Such contami-nation has the potential to cause problems, particularly ifsites are redeveloped for other agricultural or nonagriculturalpurposes. Compared with fertilizers, the use of such mate-rials has been more localized, being restricted to particularsites or crops [8].

2.3. Biosolids and Manures. The application of numerousbiosolids (e.g., livestock manures, composts, and municipalsewage sludge) to land inadvertently leads to the accumula-tion of heavy metals such as As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se,Mo, Zn, Tl, Sb, and so forth, in the soil [20]. Certain animalwastes such as poultry, cattle, and pig manures producedin agriculture are commonly applied to crops and pastureseither as solids or slurries [25]. Although most manures areseen as valuable fertilizers, in the pig and poultry industry,the Cu and Zn added to diets as growth promoters andAs contained in poultry health products may also have thepotential to cause metal contamination of the soil [25, 26].The manures produced from animals on such diets containhigh concentrations of As, Cu, and Zn and, if repeatedlyapplied to restricted areas of land, can cause considerablebuildup of these metals in the soil in the long run.

Biosolids (sewage sludge) are primarily organic solidproducts, produced by wastewater treatment processes thatcan be beneficially recycled [27]. Land application of bio-solids materials is a common practice in many countries thatallow the reuse of biosolids produced by urban populations[28]. The term sewage sludge is used in many referencesbecause of its wide recognition and its regulatory definition.However, the term biosolids is becoming more common asa replacement for sewage sludge because it is thought toreflect more accurately the beneficial characteristics inherentto sewage sludge [29]. It is estimated that in the United States,more than half of approximately 5.6 million dry tonnes ofsewage sludge used or disposed of annually is land applied,and agricultural utilization of biosolids occurs in everyregion of the country. In the European community, over30% of the sewage sludge is used as fertilizer in agriculture[29]. In Australia over 175 000 tonnes of dry biosolids areproduced each year by the major metropolitan authorities,and currently most biosolids applied to agricultural landare used in arable cropping situations where they can beincorporated into the soil [8].

There is also considerable interest in the potential forcomposting biosolids with other organic materials such assawdust, straw, or garden waste. If this trend continues, therewill be implications for metal contamination of soils. Thepotential of biosolids for contaminating soils with heavymetals has caused great concern about their application inagricultural practices [30]. Heavy metals most commonlyfound in biosolids are Pb, Ni, Cd, Cr, Cu, and Zn, and themetal concentrations are governed by the nature and theintensity of the industrial activity, as well as the type ofprocess employed during the biosolids treatment [31]. Under

certain conditions, metals added to soils in applications ofbiosolids can be leached downwards through the soil profileand can have the potential to contaminate groundwater[32]. Recent studies on some New Zealand soils treated withbiosolids have shown increased concentrations of Cd, Ni, andZn in drainage leachates [33, 34].

2.4. Wastewater. The application of municipal and industrialwastewater and related effluents to land dates back 400 yearsand now is a common practice in many parts of the world[35]. Worldwide, it is estimated that 20 million hectares ofarable land are irrigated with waste water. In several Asianand African cities, studies suggest that agriculture based onwastewater irrigation accounts for 50 percent of the vegetablesupply to urban areas [36]. Farmers generally are not both-ered about environmental benefits or hazards and areprimarily interested in maximizing their yields and profits.Although the metal concentrations in wastewater effluentsare usually relatively low, long-term irrigation of land withsuch can eventually result in heavy metal accumulation in thesoil.

2.5. Metal Mining and Milling Processes and Industrial Wastes.Mining and milling of metal ores coupled with industrieshave bequeathed many countries, the legacy of wide dis-tribution of metal contaminants in soil. During mining,tailings (heavier and larger particles settled at the bottomof the flotation cell during mining) are directly dischargedinto natural depressions, including onsite wetlands resultingin elevated concentrations [37]. Extensive Pb and zinc Znore mining and smelting have resulted in contamination ofsoil that poses risk to human and ecological health. Manyreclamation methods used for these sites are lengthy andexpensive and may not restore soil productivity. Soil heavymetal environmental risk to humans is related to bioavail-ability. Assimilation pathways include the ingestion of plantmaterial grown in (food chain), or the direct ingestion (oralbioavailability) of, contaminated soil [38].

Other materials are generated by a variety of industriessuch as textile, tanning, petrochemicals from accidental oilspills or utilization of petroleum-based products, pesticides,and pharmaceutical facilities and are highly variable in com-position. Although some are disposed of on land, few havebenefits to agriculture or forestry. In addition, many arepotentially hazardous because of their contents of heavymetals (Cr, Pb, and Zn) or toxic organic compounds and areseldom, if ever, applied to land. Others are very low in plantnutrients or have no soil conditioning properties [25].

2.6. Air-Borne Sources. Airborne sources of metals includestack or duct emissions of air, gas, or vapor streams, andfugitive emissions such as dust from storage areas or wastepiles. Metals from airborne sources are generally released asparticulates contained in the gas stream. Some metals such asAs, Cd, and Pb can also volatilize during high-temperatureprocessing. These metals will convert to oxides and con-dense as fine particulates unless a reducing atmosphere ismaintained [39]. Stack emissions can be distributed over

4 ISRN Ecology

a wide area by natural air currents until dry and/or wetprecipitation mechanisms remove them from the gas stream.Fugitive emissions are often distributed over a much smallerarea because emissions are made near the ground. In general,contaminant concentrations are lower in fugitive emissionscompared to stack emissions. The type and concentrationof metals emitted from both types of sources will dependon site-specific conditions. All solid particles in smoke fromfires and in other emissions from factory chimneys areeventually deposited on land or sea; most forms of fossilfuels contain some heavy metals and this is, therefore, aform of contamination which has been continuing on a largescale since the industrial revolution began. For example, veryhigh concentration of Cd, Pb, and Zn has been found inplants and soils adjacent to smelting works. Another majorsource of soil contamination is the aerial emission of Pbfrom the combustion of petrol containing tetraethyl lead; thiscontributes substantially to the content of Pb in soils in urbanareas and in those adjacent to major roads. Zn and Cd mayalso be added to soils adjacent to roads, the sources beingtyres, and lubricant oils [40].

3. Basic Soil Chemistry and Potential Risks ofHeavy Metals

The most common heavy metals found at contaminated sites,in order of abundance are Pb, Cr, As, Zn, Cd, Cu, andHg [40]. Those metals are important since they are capableof decreasing crop production due to the risk of bioaccu-mulation and biomagnification in the food chain. There’salso the risk of superficial and groundwater contamination.Knowledge of the basic chemistry, environmental, and as-sociated health effects of these heavy metals is necessary inunderstanding their speciation, bioavailability, and remedialoptions. The fate and transport of a heavy metal in soildepends significantly on the chemical form and speciation ofthe metal. Once in the soil, heavy metals are adsorbed by ini-tial fast reactions (minutes, hours), followed by slow adsorp-tion reactions (days, years) and are, therefore, redistributedinto different chemical forms with varying bioavailability,mobility, and toxicity [41, 42]. This distribution is believedto be controlled by reactions of heavy metals in soils such as(i) mineral precipitation and dissolution, (ii) ion exchange,adsorption, and desorption, (iii) aqueous complexation, (iv)biological immobilization and mobilization, and (v) plantuptake [43].

3.1. Lead. Lead is a metal belonging to group IV and period6 of the periodic table with atomic number 82, atomicmass 207.2, density 11.4 g cm−3, melting point 327.4◦C, andboiling point 1725◦C. It is a naturally occurring, bluish-gray metal usually found as a mineral combined with otherelements, such as sulphur (i.e., PbS, PbSO4), or oxygen(PbCO3), and ranges from 10 to 30 mg kg−1 in the earth’scrust [44]. Typical mean Pb concentration for surface soilsworldwide averages 32 mg kg−1 and ranges from 10 to67 mg kg−1 [10]. Lead ranks fifth behind Fe, Cu, Al, and Znin industrial production of metals. About half of the Pb used

in the U.S. goes for the manufacture of Pb storage batteries.Other uses include solders, bearings, cable covers, ammuni-tion, plumbing, pigments, and caulking. Metals commonlyalloyed with Pb are antimony (in storage batteries), calcium(Ca) and tin (Sn) (in maintenance-free storage batteries),silver (Ag) (for solder and anodes), strontium (Sr) and Sn(as anodes in electrowinning processes), tellurium (Te) (pipeand sheet in chemical installations and nuclear shielding),Sn (solders), and antimony (Sb), and Sn (sleeve bearings,printing, and high-detail castings) [45].

Ionic lead, Pb(II), lead oxides and hydroxides, and lead-metal oxyanion complexes are the general forms of Pb thatare released into the soil, groundwater, and surface waters.The most stable forms of lead are Pb(II) and lead-hydroxycomplexes. Lead(II) is the most common and reactive formof Pb, forming mononuclear and polynuclear oxides andhydroxides [3]. The predominant insoluble Pb compoundsare lead phosphates, lead carbonates (form when the pH isabove 6), and lead (hydr)oxides [46]. Lead sulfide (PbS) isthe most stable solid form within the soil matrix and formsunder reducing conditions, when increased concentrationsof sulfide are present. Under anaerobic conditions a volatileorganolead (tetramethyl lead) can be formed due to micro-bial alkylation [3].

Lead(II) compounds are predominantly ionic (e.g., Pb2+

SO42−), whereas Pb(IV) compounds tend to be covalent

(e.g., tetraethyl lead, Pb(C2H5)4). Some Pb (IV) compounds,such as PbO2, are strong oxidants. Lead forms several basicsalts, such as Pb(OH)2·2PbCO3, which was once the mostwidely used white paint pigment and the source of consid-erable chronic lead poisoning to children who ate peelingwhite paint. Many compounds of Pb(II) and a few Pb(IV)compounds are useful. The two most common of these arelead dioxide and lead sulphate, which are participants inthe reversible reaction that occurs during the charge anddischarge of lead storage battery.

In addition to the inorganic compounds of lead, thereare a number of organolead compounds such as tetraethyllead. The toxicities and environmental effects of organoleadcompounds are particularly noteworthy because of theformer widespread use and distribution of tetraethyllead asa gasoline additive. Although more than 1000 organoleadcompounds have been synthesized, those of commercialand toxicological importance are largely limited to the alkyl(methyl and ethyl) lead compounds and their salts (e.g.,dimethyldiethyllead, trimethyllead chloride, and diethylleaddichloride).

Inhalation and ingestion are the two routes of exposure,and the effects from both are the same. Pb accumulates inthe body organs (i.e., brain), which may lead to poisoning(plumbism) or even death. The gastrointestinal tract, kid-neys, and central nervous system are also affected by thepresence of lead. Children exposed to lead are at risk forimpaired development, lower IQ, shortened attention span,hyperactivity, and mental deterioration, with children underthe age of six being at a more substantial risk. Adults usuallyexperience decreased reaction time, loss of memory, nausea,insomnia, anorexia, and weakness of the joints when exposedto lead [47]. Lead is not an essential element. It is well known

ISRN Ecology 5

to be toxic and its effects have been more extensively reviewedthan the effects of other trace metals. Lead can cause seriousinjury to the brain, nervous system, red blood cells, andkidneys [48]. Exposure to lead can result in a wide rangeof biological effects depending on the level and durationof exposure. Various effects occur over a broad range ofdoses, with the developing young and infants being moresensitive than adults. Lead poisoning, which is so severe as tocause evident illness, is now very rare. Lead performs noknown essential function in the human body, it can merelydo harm after uptake from food, air, or water. Lead is aparticularly dangerous chemical, as it can accumulate inindividual organisms, but also in entire food chains.

The most serious source of exposure to soil lead isthrough direct ingestion (eating) of contaminated soil ordust. In general, plants do not absorb or accumulate lead.However, in soils testing high in lead, it is possible for somelead to be taken up. Studies have shown that lead does notreadily accumulate in the fruiting parts of vegetable and fruitcrops (e.g., corn, beans, squash, tomatoes, strawberries, andapples). Higher concentrations are more likely to be found inleafy vegetables (e.g., lettuce) and on the surface of root crops(e.g., carrots). Since plants do not take up large quantities ofsoil lead, the lead levels in soil considered safe for plants willbe much higher than soil lead levels where eating of soil is aconcern (pica). Generally, it has been considered safe to usegarden produce grown in soils with total lead levels less than300 ppm. The risk of lead poisoning through the food chainincreases as the soil lead level rises above this concentration.Even at soil levels above 300 ppm, most of the risk is fromlead contaminated soil or dust deposits on the plants ratherthan from uptake of lead by the plant [49].

3.2. Chromium. Chromium is a first-row d-block transitionmetal of group VIB in the periodic table with the follow-ing properties: atomic number 24, atomic mass 52, den-sity 7.19 g cm−3, melting point 1875◦C, and boiling point2665◦C. It is one of the less common elements and does notoccur naturally in elemental form, but only in compounds.Chromium is mined as a primary ore product in the formof the mineral chromite, FeCr2O4. Major sources of Cr-contamination include releases from electroplating processesand the disposal of Cr containing wastes [39]. Chromi-um(VI) is the form of Cr commonly found at contaminatedsites. Chromium can also occur in the +III oxidation state,depending on pH and redox conditions. Chromium(VI) isthe dominant form of Cr in shallow aquifers where aerobicconditions exist. Chromium(VI) can be reduced to Cr(III)by soil organic matter, S2− and Fe2+ ions under anaerobicconditions often encountered in deeper groundwater. MajorCr(VI) species include chromate (CrO4

2−) and dichromate(Cr2O7

2−) which precipitate readily in the presence of metalcations (especially Ba2+, Pb2+, and Ag+). Chromate and di-chromate also adsorb on soil surfaces, especially iron andaluminum oxides. Chromium(III) is the dominant form ofCr at low pH (<4). Cr3+ forms solution complexes with NH3,OH−, Cl−, F−, CN−, SO4

2−, and soluble organic ligands.Chromium(VI) is the more toxic form of chromium and is

also more mobile. Chromium(III) mobility is decreased byadsorption to clays and oxide minerals below pH 5 and lowsolubility above pH 5 due to the formation of Cr(OH)3(s)[50]. Chromium mobility depends on sorption characteris-tics of the soil, including clay content, iron oxide content,and the amount of organic matter present. Chromiumcan be transported by surface runoff to surface waters inits soluble or precipitated form. Soluble and un-adsorbedchromium complexes can leach from soil into groundwater.The leachability of Cr(VI) increases as soil pH increases.Most of Cr released into natural waters is particle associated,however, and is ultimately deposited into the sediment [39].Chromium is associated with allergic dermatitis in humans[21].

3.3. Arsenic. Arsenic is a metalloid in group VA and period 4of the periodic table that occurs in a wide variety of minerals,mainly as As2O3, and can be recovered from processing ofores containing mostly Cu, Pb, Zn, Ag and Au. It is alsopresent in ashes from coal combustion. Arsenic has thefollowing properties: atomic number 33, atomic mass 75,density 5.72 g cm−3, melting point 817◦C, and boiling point613◦C, and exhibits fairly complex chemistry and can bepresent in several oxidation states (−III, 0, III, V) [39]. Inaerobic environments, As (V) is dominant, usually in theform of arsenate (AsO4

3−) in various protonation states:H3AsO4, H2AsO4

−, HAsO42−, and AsO4

3−. Arsenate andother anionic forms of arsenic behave as chelates andcan precipitate when metal cations are present [51]. Metalarsenate complexes are stable only under certain conditions.Arsenic (V) can also coprecipitate with or adsorb onto ironoxyhydroxides under acidic and moderately reducing condi-tions. Coprecipitates are immobile under these conditions,but arsenic mobility increases as pH increases [39]. Underreducing conditions As(III) dominates, existing as arsenite(AsO3

3−), and its protonated forms H3AsO3, H2AsO3−, and

HAsO32−. Arsenite can adsorb or coprecipitate with metal

sulfides and has a high affinity for other sulfur compounds.Elemental arsenic and arsine, AsH3, may be present underextreme reducing conditions. Biotransformation (via methy-lation) of arsenic creates methylated derivatives of arsine,such as dimethyl arsine HAs(CH3)2 and trimethylarsineAs(CH3)3 which are highly volatile. Since arsenic is oftenpresent in anionic form, it does not form complexes withsimple anions such as Cl− and SO4

2−. Arsenic speciationalso includes organometallic forms such as methylarsinicacid (CH3)AsO2H2 and dimethylarsinic acid (CH3)2AsO2H.Many As compounds adsorb strongly to soils and are there-fore transported only over short distances in groundwaterand surface water. Arsenic is associated with skin damage,increased risk of cancer, and problems with circulatorysystem [21].

3.4. Zinc. Zinc is a transition metal with the following char-acteristics: period 4, group IIB, atomic number 30, atomicmass 65.4, density 7.14 g cm−3, melting point 419.5◦C, andboiling point 906◦C. Zinc occurs naturally in soil (about70 mg kg−1 in crustal rocks) [52], but Zn concentrations are

6 ISRN Ecology

rising unnaturally, due to anthropogenic additions. MostZn is added during industrial activities, such as mining,coal, and waste combustion and steel processing. Manyfoodstuffs contain certain concentrations of Zn. Drinkingwater also contains certain amounts of Zn, which may behigher when it is stored in metal tanks. Industrial sourcesor toxic waste sites may cause the concentrations of Zn indrinking water to reach levels that can cause health problems.Zinc is a trace element that is essential for human health.Zinc shortages can cause birth defects. The world’s Znproduction is still on the rise which means that more andmore Zn ends up in the environment. Water is polluted withZn, due to the presence of large quantities present in thewastewater of industrial plants. A consequence is that Zn-polluted sludge is continually being deposited by rivers ontheir banks. Zinc may also increase the acidity of waters.Some fish can accumulate Zn in their bodies, when they livein Zn-contaminated waterways. When Zn enters the bodiesof these fish, it is able to biomagnify up the food chain.Water-soluble zinc that is located in soils can contaminategroundwater. Plants often have a Zn uptake that their systemscannot handle, due to the accumulation of Zn in soils.Finally, Zn can interrupt the activity in soils, as it negativelyinfluences the activity of microorganisms and earthworms,thus retarding the breakdown of organic matter [53].

3.5. Cadmium. Cadmium is located at the end of the secondrow of transition elements with atomic number 48, atomicweight 112.4, density 8.65 g cm−3, melting point 320.9◦C,and boiling point 765◦C. Together with Hg and Pb, Cd isone of the big three heavy metal poisons and is not knownfor any essential biological function. In its compounds, Cdoccurs as the divalent Cd(II) ion. Cadmium is directly belowZn in the periodic table and has a chemical similarity to thatof Zn, an essential micronutrient for plants and animals. Thismay account in part for Cd’s toxicity; because Zn being anessential trace element, its substitution by Cd may cause themalfunctioning of metabolic processes [54].

The most significant use of Cd is in Ni/Cd batteries, asrechargeable or secondary power sources exhibiting highoutput, long life, low maintenance, and high tolerance tophysical and electrical stress. Cadmium coatings providegood corrosion resistance coating to vessels and other vehi-cles, particularly in high-stress environments such as marineand aerospace. Other uses of cadmium are as pigments, sta-bilizers for polyvinyl chloride (PVC), in alloys and electroniccompounds. Cadmium is also present as an impurity in sev-eral products, including phosphate fertilizers, detergentsand refined petroleum products. In addition, acid rain andthe resulting acidification of soils and surface waters haveincreased the geochemical mobility of Cd, and as a result itssurface-water concentrations tend to increase as lake waterpH decreases [54]. Cadmium is produced as an inevitablebyproduct of Zn and occasionally lead refining. The applica-tion of agricultural inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, andbiosolids (sewage sludge), the disposal of industrial wastesor the deposition of atmospheric contaminants increases thetotal concentration of Cd in soils, and the bioavailability of

this Cd determines whether plant Cd uptake occurs to asignificant degree [28]. Cadmium is very biopersistent buthas few toxicological properties and, once absorbed by anorganism, remains resident for many years.

Since the 1970s, there has been sustained interest in pos-sible exposure of humans to Cd through their food chain, forexample, through the consumption of certain species ofshellfish or vegetables. Concern regarding this latter route(agricultural crops) led to research on the possible conse-quences of applying sewage sludge (Cd-rich biosolids) tosoils used for crops meant for human consumption, or ofusing cadmium-enriched phosphate fertilizer [54]. This re-search has led to the stipulation of highest permissibleconcentrations for a number of food crops [8].

Cadmium in the body is known to affect several enzymes.It is believed that the renal damage that results in proteinuriais the result of Cd adversely affecting enzymes responsiblefor reabsorption of proteins in kidney tubules. Cadmiumalso reduces the activity of delta-aminolevulinic acid syn-thetase, arylsulfatase, alcohol dehydrogenase, and lipoamidedehydrogenase, whereas it enhances the activity of delta-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase, pyruvate dehydrogenase,and pyruvate decarboxylase [45]. The most spectacular andpublicized occurrence of cadmium poisoning resulted fromdietary intake of cadmium by people in the Jintsu RiverValley, near Fuchu, Japan. The victims were afflicted by itaiitai disease, which means ouch, ouch in Japanese. The symp-toms are the result of painful osteomalacia (bone disease)combined with kidney malfunction. Cadmium poisoningin the Jintsu River Valley was attributed to irrigated ricecontaminated from an upstream mine producing Pb, Zn,and Cd. The major threat to human health is chronicaccumulation in the kidneys leading to kidney dysfunction.Food intake and tobacco smoking are the main routes bywhich Cd enters the body [45].

3.6. Copper. Copper is a transition metal which belongs toperiod 4 and group IB of the periodic table with atomicnumber 29, atomic weight 63.5, density 8.96 g cm−3, meltingpoint 1083◦C and boiling point 2595◦C. The metal’s averagedensity and concentrations in crustal rocks are 8.1 ×103 kg m−3 and 55 mg kg−1, respectively [52].

Copper is the third most used metal in the world [55].Copper is an essential micronutrient required in the growthof both plants and animals. In humans, it helps in theproduction of blood haemoglobin. In plants, Cu is espe-cially important in seed production, disease resistance, andregulation of water. Copper is indeed essential, but in highdoses it can cause anaemia, liver and kidney damage, andstomach and intestinal irritation. Copper normally occursin drinking water from Cu pipes, as well as from additivesdesigned to control algal growth. While Cu’s interaction withthe environment is complex, research shows that most Cuintroduced into the environment is, or rapidly becomes,stable and results in a form which does not pose a risk tothe environment. In fact, unlike some man-made materials,Cu is not magnified in the body or bioaccumulated in thefood chain. In the soil, Cu strongly complexes to the organic

ISRN Ecology 7

implying that only a small fraction of copper will be foundin solution as ionic copper, Cu(II). The solubility of Cu isdrastically increased at pH 5.5 [56], which is rather close tothe ideal farmland pH of 6.0–6.5 [57].

Copper and Zn are two important essential elements forplants, microorganisms, animals, and humans. The connec-tion between soil and water contamination and metal uptakeby plants is determined by many chemical and physical soilfactors as well as the physiological properties of the crops.Soils contaminated with trace metals may pose both directand indirect threats: direct, through negative effects of metalson crop growth and yield, and indirect, by entering thehuman food chain with a potentially negative impact onhuman health. Even a reduction of crop yield by a few percentcould lead to a significant long-term loss in production andincome. Some food importers are now specifying acceptablemaximum contents of metals in food, which might limit thepossibility for the farmers to export their contaminated crops[36].

3.7. Mercury. Mercury belongs to same group of the periodictable with Zn and Cd. It is the only liquid metal at stp. It hasatomic number 80, atomic weight 200.6, density 13.6 g cm−3,melting point −13.6◦C, and boiling point 357◦C and isusually recovered as a byproduct of ore processing [39].Release of Hg from coal combustion is a major source ofHg contamination. Releases from manometers at pressure-measuring stations along gas/oil pipelines also contributeto Hg contamination. After release to the environment,Hg usually exists in mercuric (Hg2+), mercurous (Hg2

2+),elemental (Hgo), or alkylated form (methyl/ethyl mercury).The redox potential and pH of the system determinethe stable forms of Hg that will be present. Mercurousand mercuric mercury are more stable under oxidizingconditions. When mildly reducing conditions exist, organicor inorganic Hg may be reduced to elemental Hg, whichmay then be converted to alkylated forms by biotic or abioticprocesses. Mercury is most toxic in its alkylated forms whichare soluble in water and volatile in air [39]. Mercury(II)forms strong complexes with a variety of both inorganicand organic ligands, making it very soluble in oxidizedaquatic systems [51]. Sorption to soils, sediments, and humicmaterials is an important mechanism for the removal of Hgfrom solution. Sorption is pH dependent and increases as pHincreases. Mercury may also be removed from solution bycoprecipitation with sulphides. Under anaerobic conditions,both organic and inorganic forms of Hg may be convertedto alkylated forms by microbial activity, such as by sulfur-reducing bacteria. Elemental mercury may also be formedunder anaerobic conditions by demethylation of methylmercury, or by reduction of Hg(II). Acidic conditions (pH< 4) also favor the formation of methyl mercury, whereashigher pH values favor precipitation of HgS(s) [39]. Mercuryis associated with kidney damage [21].

3.8. Nickel. Nickel is a transition element with atomic num-ber 28 and atomic weight 58.69. In low pH regions, the metalexists in the form of the nickelous ion, Ni(II). In neutral to

slightly alkaline solutions, it precipitates as nickelous hydro-xide, Ni(OH)2, which is a stable compound. This precipitatereadily dissolves in acid solutions forming Ni(III) and in veryalkaline conditions; it forms nickelite ion, HNiO2, that issoluble in water. In very oxidizing and alkaline conditions,nickel exists in form of the stable nickelo-nickelic oxide,Ni3O4, that is soluble in acid solutions. Other nickel oxidessuch as nickelic oxide, Ni2O3, and nickel peroxide, NiO2, areunstable in alkaline solutions and decompose by giving offoxygen. In acidic regions, however, these solids dissolve pro-ducing Ni2+ [58].

Nickel is an element that occurs in the environment onlyat very low levels and is essential in small doses, but it canbe dangerous when the maximum tolerable amounts areexceeded. This can cause various kinds of cancer on differentsites within the bodies of animals, mainly of those that livenear refineries. The most common application of Ni is aningredient of steel and other metal products. The majorsources of nickel contamination in the soil are metal platingindustries, combustion of fossil fuels, and nickel miningand electroplating [59]. It is released into the air by powerplants and trash incinerators and settles to the ground afterundergoing precipitation reactions. It usually takes a longtime for nickel to be removed from air. Nickel can also endup in surface water when it is a part of wastewater streams.The larger part of all Ni compounds that are released tothe environment will adsorb to sediment or soil particlesand become immobile as a result. In acidic soils, however,Ni becomes more mobile and often leaches down to theadjacent groundwater. Microorganisms can also suffer fromgrowth decline due to the presence of Ni, but they usuallydevelop resistance to Ni after a while. Nickel is not known toaccumulate in plants or animals and as a result Ni has notbeen found to biomagnify up the food chain. For animalsNi is an essential foodstuff in small amounts. The primarysource of mercury is the sulphide ore cinnabar.

4. Soil Concentration Ranges and RegulatoryGuidelines for Some Heavy Metals

The specific type of metal contamination found in a contam-inated soil is directly related to the operation that occurredat the site. The range of contaminant concentrations andthe physical and chemical forms of contaminants will alsodepend on activities and disposal patterns for contaminatedwastes on the site. Other factors that may influence theform, concentration, and distribution of metal contaminantsinclude soil and ground-water chemistry and local transportmechanisms [3].

Soils may contain metals in the solid, gaseous, or liquidphases, and this may complicate analysis and interpretationof reported results. For example, the most common methodfor determining the concentration of metals contaminantsin soil is via total elemental analysis (USEPA Method 3050).The level of metal contamination determined by this methodis expressed as mg metal kg−1 soil. This analysis does notspecify requirements for the moisture content of the soil andmay therefore include soil water. This measurement may also

8 ISRN Ecology

be reported on a dry soil basis. The level of contaminationmay also be reported as leachable metals as determinedby leach tests, such as the toxicity characteristic leachingprocedure (TCLP) (USEPA Method 1311) or the syntheticprecipitation-leaching procedure, or SPLP test (USEPAMethod 1312). These procedures measure the concentrationof metals in leachate from soil contacted with an aceticacid solution (TCLP) [60] or a dilute solution of sulfuricand nitric acid (SPLP). In this case, metal contaminationis expressed in mgL−1 of the leachable metal. Other typesof leaching tests have been proposed including sequentialextraction procedures [61, 62] and extraction of acid volatilesulfide [63]. Sequential procedures contact the solid with aseries of extractant solutions that are designed to dissolvedifferent fractions of the associated metal. These tests mayprovide insight into the different forms of metal contamina-tion present. Contaminant concentrations can be measureddirectly in metals-contaminated water. These concentrationsare most commonly expressed as total dissolved metalsin mass concentrations (mg L−1 or gL−1) or in molarconcentrations (mol L−1). In dilute solutions, a mg L−1 isequivalent to one part per million (ppm), and a gL−1 isequivalent to one part per billion (ppb).

Riley et al. [64] and NJDEP [65] have reported soil con-centration ranges and regulatory guidelines for some heavymetals (Table 1). In Nigeria, in the interim period, whilstsuitable parameters are being developed, the Department ofPetroleum Resources [60] has recommended guidelines onremediation of contaminated land based on two parametersintervention values and target values (Table 2).

The intervention values indicate the quality for which thefunctionality of soil for human, animal, and plant life are, orthreatened with being seriously impaired. Concentrations inexcess of the intervention values correspond to serious con-tamination. Target values indicate the soil quality requiredfor sustainability or expressed in terms of remedial policy,the soil quality required for the full restoration of the soil’sfunctionality for human, animal, and plant life. The targetvalues therefore indicate the soil quality levels ultimatelyaimed at.

5. Remediation of HeavyMetal-Contaminated Soils

The overall objective of any soil remediation approach is tocreate a final solution that is protective of human health andthe environment [66]. Remediation is generally subject toan array of regulatory requirements and can also be basedon assessments of human health and ecological risks whereno legislated standards exist or where standards are advisory.The regulatory authorities will normally accept remediationstrategies that centre on reducing metal bioavailability onlyif reduced bioavailability is equated with reduced risk, andif the bioavailability reductions are demonstrated to be longterm [66]. For heavy metal-contaminated soils, the physicaland chemical form of the heavy metal contaminant in soilstrongly influences the selection of the appropriate remedi-ation treatment approach. Information about the physical

Table 1: Soil concentration ranges and regulatory guidelines forsome heavy metals.

MetalSoil concentration range† Regulatory limits‡

(mg kg−1) (mg kg−1)

Pb 1.00–69 000 600

Cd 0.10–345 100

Cr 0.05–3 950 100

Hg <0.01–1 800 270

Zn 150–5 000 1 500†

[64]; ‡Nonresidential direct contact soil clean-up criteria [65].

Table 2: Target and intervention values for some metals for a stan-dard soil [60].

MetalTarget value Intervention value

(mg kg−1) (mg kg−1)

Ni 140.00 720.00

Cu 0.30 10.00

Zn — —

Cd 100.00 380.00

Pb 35.00 210.00

As 200 625

Cr 20 240

Hg 85 530

characteristics of the site and the type and level of con-tamination at the site must be obtained to enable accurateassessment of site contamination and remedial alternatives.The contamination in the soil should be characterized toestablish the type, amount, and distribution of heavy metalsin the soil. Once the site has been characterized, the desiredlevel of each metal in soil must be determined. This is done bycomparison of observed heavy metal concentrations with soilquality standards for a particular regulatory domain, or byperformance of a site-specific risk assessment. Remediationgoals for heavy metals may be set as total metal concentrationor as leachable metal in soil, or as some combination of these.

Several technologies exist for the remediation of metal-contaminated soil. Gupta et al. [67] have classified remedia-tion technologies of contaminated soils into three categoriesof hazard-alleviating measures: (i) gentle in situ remediation,(ii) in situ harsh soil restrictive measures, and (iii) in situor ex situ harsh soil destructive measures. The goal of thelast two harsh alleviating measures is to avert hazards eitherto man, plant, or animal while the main goal of gentle insitu remediation is to restore the malfunctionality of soil(soil fertility), which allows a safe use of the soil. At present,a variety of approaches have been suggested for remediat-ing contaminated soils. USEPA [68] has broadly classifiedremediation technologies for contaminated soils into (i)source control and (ii) containment remedies. Source controlinvolves in situ and ex situ treatment technologies forsources of contamination. In situ or in place means that thecontaminated soil is treated in its original place; unmoved,unexcavated; remaining at the site or in the subsurface. Insitu treatment technologies treat or remove the contaminant

ISRN Ecology 9

from soil without excavation or removal of the soil. Ex situmeans that the contaminated soil is moved, excavated, orremoved from the site or subsurface. Implementation of exsitu remedies requires excavation or removal of the contam-inated soil. Containment remedies involve the constructionof vertical engineered barriers (VEB), caps, and liners usedto prevent the migration of contaminants.

Another classification places remediation technologiesfor heavy metal-contaminated soils under five categories ofgeneral approaches to remediation (Table 3): isolation, im-mobilization, toxicity reduction, physical separation, andextraction [3]. In practice, it may be more convenient toemploy a hybrid of two or more of these approaches formore cost effectiveness. The key factors that may influencethe applicability and selection of any of the available reme-diation technologies are: (i) cost, (ii) long-term effective-ness/permanence, (iii) commercial availability, (iv) generalacceptance, (v) applicability to high metal concentrations,(vi) applicability to mixed wastes (heavy metals and organ-ics), (vii) toxicity reduction, (viii) mobility reduction, and(ix) volume reduction. The present paper focuses on soilwashing, phytoremediation, and immobilization techniquessince they are among the best demonstrated available tech-nologies (BDATs) for heavy metal-contaminated sites.

5.1. Immobilization Techniques. Ex situ and in situ immobi-lization techniques are practical approaches to remediationof metal-contaminated soils. The ex situ technique is appliedin areas where highly contaminated soil must be removedfrom its place of origin, and its storage is connected witha high ecological risk (e.g., in the case of radio nuclides).The method’s advantages are: (i) fast and easy applicabilityand (ii) relatively low costs of investment and operation.The method’s disadvantages include (i) high invasivity to theenvironment, (ii) generation of a significant amount of solidwastes (twice as large as volume after processing), (iii) thebyproduct must be stored on a special landfill site, (iv) in thecase of changing of the physicochemical condition in the sideproduct or its surroundings, there is serious danger of therelease of additional contaminants to the environment, and(v) permanent control of the stored wastes is required. In thein situ technique, the fixing agents amendments are appliedon the unexcavated soil. The technique’s advantages are (i)its low invasivity, (ii) simplicity and rapidity, (iii) relativelyinexpensive, and (iv) small amount of wastes are produced,(v) high public acceptability, (vi) covers a broad spectrum ofinorganic pollutants. The disadvantages of in situ immobi-lization are (i) its only a temporary solution (contaminantsare still in the environment), (ii) the activation of pollutantsmay occur when soil physicochemical properties change, (iii)the reclamation process is applied only to the surface layer ofsoil (30–50 cm), and (iv) permanent monitoring is necessary[66, 69].

Immobilization technology often uses organic and inor-ganic amendment to accelerate the attenuation of metal mo-bility and toxicity in soils. The primary role of immobilizingamendments is to alter the original soil metals to more ge-ochemically stable phases via sorption, precipitation, and

Table 3: Technologies for remediation of heavy metal-contaminat-ed soils.

Category Remediation technologies

Isolation (i) Capping (ii) subsurface barriers.

Immobilization(i) Solidification/stabilization (ii) vitrification(iii) chemical treatment.

Toxicity and/ormobilityreduction

(i) Chemical treatment (ii) permeable treatmentwalls (iii) biological treatment bioaccumulation,phytoremediation (phytoextraction,phytostabilization, and rhizofiltration),bioleaching, biochemical processes.

Physicalseparation

Extraction(i) Soil washing, pyrometallurgical extraction, insitu soil flushing, and electrokinetic treatment.

complexation processes [70]. The mostly applied amend-ments include clay, cement, zeolites, minerals, phosphates,organic composts, and microbes [3, 71]. Recent studies haveindicated the potential of low-cost industrial residues such asred mud [72, 73] and termitaria [74] in immobilization ofheavy metals in contaminated soils. Due to the complexityof soil matrix and the limitations of current analyticaltechniques, the exact immobilization mechanisms have notbeen clarified, which could include precipitation, chemicaladsorption and ion exchange, surface precipitation, forma-tion of stable complexes with organic ligands, and redoxreaction [75]. Most immobilization technologies can beperformed ex situ or in situ. In situ processes are preferreddue to the lower labour and energy requirements, but imple-mentation of in situ will depend on specific site conditions.

5.1.1. Solidification/Stabilization (S/S). Solidification involvesthe addition of binding agents to a contaminated materialto impart physical/dimensional stability to contain contami-nants in a solid product and reduce access by external agentsthrough a combination of chemical reaction, encapsulation,and reduced permeability/surface area. Stabilization (alsoreferred to as fixation) involves the addition of reagents tothe contaminated soil to produce more chemically stableconstituents. Conventional S/S is an established remediationtechnology for contaminated soils and treatment technologyfor hazardous wastes in many countries in the world [76].

The general approach for solidification/stabilization treat-ment processes involves mixing or injecting treatment agentsto the contaminated soils. Inorganic binders (Table 4), suchas clay (bentonite and kaolinite), cement, fly ash, blastfurnace slag, calcium carbonate, Fe/Mn oxides, charcoal,zeolite [9, 77], and organic stabilizers (Table 5) such as bi-tumen, composts, and manures [78], or a combination oforganic-inorganic amendments may be used. The dominantmechanism by which metals are immobilized is by pre-cipitation of hydroxides within the solid matrix [79, 80].Solidification/stabilization technologies are not useful forsome forms of metal contamination, such as species thatexist as oxyanions (e.g., Cr2O7

2−, AsO3−) or metals that do

10 ISRN Ecology

Table 4: Organic amendments for heavy metal immobilization[82].

MaterialHeavy metalimmobilized

Bark saw dust (from timber industry) Cd, Pb, Hg, Cu

Xylogen (from paper mill wastewater) Zn, Pb, Hg

Chitosan (from crab meat canning industry) Cd, Cr, Hg

Bagasse (from sugar cane) Pb

Poultry manure (from poultry farm) Cu, Pb, Zn, Cd

Cattle manure (from cattle farm) Cd

Rice hulls (from rice processing) Cd, Cr, Pb

Sewage sludge Cd

Leaves Cr, Cd

Straw Cd, Cr, Pb

Table 5: Inorganic amendments for heavy metal immobilization[82].

MaterialHeavy metalimmobilized

Lime (from lime factory) Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn,

Phosphate salt (from fertilizer plant) Pb, Zn, Cu, Cd

Hydroxyapatite (from phosphorite) Zn, Pb, Cu, Cd

Fly ash (from thermal power plant) Cd, Pb, Cu, Zn, Cr

Slag (from thermal power plant) Cd, Pb, Zn, Cr

Ca-montmorillonite (mineral) Zn, Pb

Portland cement (from cement plant) Cr, Cu, Zn, Pb

Bentonite Pb

not have low-solubility hydroxides (e.g., Hg). Solidifica-tion/stabilization may not be applicable at sites containingwastes that include organic forms of contamination, espe-cially if volatile organics are present. Mixing and heatingassociated with binder hydration may release organic vapors.Pretreatment, such as air stripping or incineration, maybe used to remove the organics and prepare the wastefor metal stabilization/solidification [39]. The applicationof S/S technologies will also be affected by the chemicalcomposition of the contaminated matrix, the amount ofwater present, and the ambient temperature. These factorscan interfere with the solidification/stabilization process byinhibiting bonding of the waste to the binding material,retarding the setting of the mixtures, decreasing the stabilityof the matrix, or reducing the strength of the solidified area[81].

Cement-based binders and stabilizers are common mate-rials used for implementation of S/S technologies [83]. Port-land cement, a mixture of Ca silicates, aluminates, alumino-ferrites, and sulfates, is an important cement-based material.Pozzolanic materials, which consist of small spherical parti-cles formed by coal combustion (such as fly ash) and in limeand cement kilns, are also commonly used for S/S. Pozzolansexhibit cement-like properties, especially if the silica contentis high. Portland cement and pozzolans can be used aloneor together to obtain optimal properties for a particular

site [84]. Organic binders may also be used to treat metalsthrough polymer microencapsulation. This process usesorganic materials such as bitumen, polyethylene, paraffins,waxes, and other polyolefins as thermoplastic or thermoset-ting resins. For polymer encapsulation, the organic materialsare heated and mixed with the contaminated matrix at ele-vated temperatures (120◦ to 200◦C). The organic materialspolymerize and agglomerate the waste, and the waste matrixis encapsulated [84]. Organics are volatilized and collected,and the treated material is extruded for disposal or possiblereuse (e.g., as paving material) [39]. The contaminated mate-rial may require pretreatment to separate rocks and debrisand dry the feed material. Polymer encapsulation requiresmore energy and more complex equipment than cement-based S/S operations. Bitumen (asphalt) is the cheapest andmost common thermoplastic binder [84]. Solidification/sta-bilization is achieved by mixing the contaminated materialwith appropriate amounts of binder/stabilizer and water.The mixture sets and cures to form a solidified matrix andcontain the waste. The cure time and pour characteristics ofthe mixture and the final properties of the hardened cementdepend upon the composition (amount of cement, pozzolan,and water) of the binder/stabilizer.

Ex situ S/S can be easily applied to excavated soils becausemethods are available to provide the vigorous mixing neededto combine the binder/stabilizer with the contaminatedmaterial. Pretreatment of the waste may be necessary toscreen and crush large rocks and debris. Mixing can be per-formed via in-drum, in-plant, or area-mixing processes. In-drum mixing may be preferred for treatment of small vol-umes of waste or for toxic wastes. In-plant processes utilizerotary drum mixers for batch processes or pug mill mixersfor continuous treatment. Larger volumes of waste may beexcavated and moved to a contained area for area mixing.This process involves layering the contaminated materialwith the stabilizer/binder, and subsequent mixing with abackhoe or similar equipment. Mobile and fixed treatmentplants are available for ex situ S/S treatment. Smaller pilot-scale plants can treat up to 100 tons of contaminated soil perday while larger portable plants typically process 500 to over1000 tons per day [39]. Stabilization/stabilization techniquesare available to provide mixing of the binder/stabilizer withthe contaminated soil in situ. In situ S/S is less labor andenergy intensive than ex situ process that require excavation,transport, and disposal of the treated material. In situ S/Sis also preferred if volatile or semivolatile organics arepresent because excavation would expose these contaminantsto the air [85]. However, the presence of bedrock, largeboulders cohesive soils, oily sands, and clays may precludethe application of in situ S/S at some sites. It is also moredifficult to provide uniform and complete mixing throughin situ processes. Mixing of the binder and contaminatedmatrix may be achieved using in-place mixing, vertical augermixing, or injection grouting. In-place mixing is similar toex situ area mixing except that the soil is not excavated priorto treatment. The in situ process is useful for treating surfaceor shallow contamination and involves spreading and mixingthe binders with the waste using conventional excavationequipment such as draglines, backhoes, or clamshell buckets.

ISRN Ecology 11

Vertical auger mixing uses a system of augers to inject andmix the binding reagents with the waste. Larger (6–12 ftdiameter) augers are used for shallow (10–40 ft) drillingand can treat 500–1000 cubic yards per day [86, 87]. Deepstabilization/solidification (up to 150 ft) can be achieved byusing ganged augers (up to 3 ft in diameter each) that cantreat 150–400 cubic yards per day. Finally injection groutingmay be performed to inject the binder containing suspendedor dissolved reagents into the treatment area under pressure.The binder permeates the surrounding soil and cures in place[39].

5.1.2. Vitrification. The mobility of metal contaminants canbe decreased by high-temperature treatment of the contami-nated area that results in the formation of vitreous material,usually an oxide solid. During this process, the increasedtemperature may also volatilize and/or destroy organic con-taminants or volatile metal species (such as Hg) that mustbe collected for treatment or disposal. Most soils can betreated by vitrification, and a wide variety of inorganic andorganic contaminants can be targeted. Vitrification may beperformed ex situ or in situ although in situ processes arepreferred due to the lower energy requirements and cost [88].Typical stages in ex situ vitrification processes may includeexcavation, pretreatment, mixing, feeding, melting and vit-rification, off-gas collection and treatment, and forming orcasting of the melted product. The energy requirement formelting is the primary factor influencing the cost of ex situvitrification. Different sources of energy can be used for thispurpose, depending on local energy costs. Process heat lossesand water content of the feed should be controlled in orderto minimize energy requirements. Vitrified material withcertain characteristics may be obtained by using additivessuch as sand, clay, and/or native soil. The vitrified waste maybe recycled and used as clean fill, aggregate, or other reusablematerials [39]. In situ vitrification (ISV) involves passingelectric current through the soil using an array of electrodesinserted vertically into the contaminated region. Each settingof four electrodes is referred to as a melt. If the soil istoo dry, it may not provide sufficient conductance, and atrench containing flaked graphite and glass frit (ground glassparticles) must be placed between the electrodes to providean initial flow path for the current. Resistance heating in thestarter path melts the soil. The melt grows outward and downas the molten soil usually provides additional conductancefor the current. A single melt can treat up to 1000 tons ofcontaminated soil to depths of 20 feet, at a typical treatmentrate of 3 to 6 tons per hour. Larger areas are treated by fusingtogether multiple individual vitrification zones. The mainrequirement for in situ vitrification is the ability of the soilmelt to carry current and solidify as it cools. If the alkalicontent (as Na2O and K2O) of the soil is too high (1.4 wt%),the molten soil may not provide enough conductance tocarry the current [89].

Vitrification is not a classical immobilization technique.The advantages include (i) easily applied for reclamation ofheavily contaminated soils (Pb, Cd, Cr, asbestos, and mate-rials containing asbestos), (ii) in the course of applying this

method qualification of wastes (from hazardous to neutral)could be changed.

5.1.3. Assessment of Efficiency and Capacity of Immobilization.The efficiency (E) and capacity (P) of different additives forimmobilization and field applications can be evaluated usingthe expressions

E(%) = Mo −Me

Mo× 100,

P = (Mo −Me)Vm

,

(2)

where E = efficiency of immobilization agent; P = capacityof immobilization agent; Me = equilibrium extractable con-centration of single metal in the immobilized soil (mg L−1);Mo = initial extractable concentration of single metal inpreimmobilized soil (mg L−1); V = volume of metal saltsolution (mg L−1); m = weight of immobilization agent (g)[90]. High values of E and P represent the perfect efficiencyand capacity of an additive that can be used in fieldstudies of metal immobilization. After screening out the bestefficient additive, another experiment could be conducted todetermine the best ratio (soil/additive) for the field-fixingtreatment. After the fixing treatment of contaminated soils,a lot of methods including biological and physiochemicalexperiments could be used to assess the remediation effi-ciency. Environmental risk could also be estimated afterconfirming the immobilized efficiency and possible release[89].

5.2. Soil Washing. Soil washing is essentially a volume reduc-tion/waste minimization treatment process. It is done onthe excavated (physically removed) soil (ex situ) or on-site(in situ). Soil washing as discussed in this review refers to exsitu techniques that employ physical and/or chemical proce-dures to extract metal contaminants from soils. During soilwashing, (i) those soil particles which host the majority ofthe contamination are separated from the bulk soil fractions(physical separation), (ii) contaminants are removed fromthe soil by aqueous chemicals and recovered from solution ona solid substrate (chemical extraction), or (iii) a combinationof both [91]. In all cases, the separated contaminants thengo to hazardous waste landfill (or occasionally are furthertreated by chemical, thermal, or biological processes). Byremoving the majority of the contamination from the soil,the bulk fraction that remains can be (i) recycled on thesite being remediated as relatively inert backfill, (ii) used onanother site as fill, or (iii) disposed of relatively cheaply asnonhazardous material.

Ex situ soil washing is particularly frequently used in soilremediation because it (i) completely removes the contami-nants and hence ensures the rapid cleanup of a contaminatedsite [92], (ii) meets specific criteria, (iii) reduces or eliminateslong-term liability, (iv) may be the most cost-effective solu-tion, and (v) may produce recyclable material or energy [93].The disadvantages include the fact that the contaminantsare simply moved to a different place, where they mustbe monitored, the risk of spreading contaminated soil and

12 ISRN Ecology

dust particles during removal and transport of contaminatedsoil, and the relatively high cost. Excavation can be themost expensive option when large amounts of soil must beremoved, or disposal as hazardous or toxic waste is required.

Acid and chelator soil washing are the two most prevalentremoval methods [94]. Soil washing currently involves soilflushing an in situ process in which the washing solution isforced through the in-place soil matrix, ex situ extractionof heavy metals from the soil slurry in reactors, and soilheap leaching. Another heavy metal removal technologyis electroremediation, which mostly involves electrokineticmovement of charged particles suspended in the soil solu-tion, initiated by an electric gradient [35]. The metals can beremoved by precipitation at the electrodes. Removal of themajority of the contaminants from the soil does not meanthat the contaminant-depleted bulk is totally contaminantfree. Thus, for soil washing to be successful, the level of con-tamination in the treated bulk must be below a site-specific action limit (e.g., based on risk assessment). Costeffectiveness with soil washing is achieved by offsetting pro-cessing costs against the ability to significantly reduce theamount of material requiring costly disposal at a hazardouswaste landfill [95].

Typically the cleaned fractions from the soil washing pro-cess should be >70–80% of the original mass of the soil,but, where the contaminants have a very high associateddisposal cost, and/or where transport distances to the nearesthazardous waste landfill are substantial, a 50% reductionmight still be cost effective. There is also a generally heldopinion that soil washing based on physical separation pro-cesses is only cost effective for sandy and granular soilswhere the clay and silt content (particles less than 0.063 mm)is less than 30–35% of the soil. Soil washing by chemicaldissolution of the contaminants is not constrained by theproportion of clay as this fraction can also be leached by thechemical agent. However, clay-rich soils pose other problemssuch as difficulties with materials handling and solid-liquidseparation [96]. Full-scale soil washing plants exist as fixedcentralized treatment centres, or as mobile/transportableunits. With fixed centralized facilities, contaminated soil isbrought to the plant, whereas with mobile/transportablefacilities, the plant is transported to a contaminated site,and soil is processed on the site. Where mobile/transportableplant is used, the cost of mobilization and demobilization canbe significant. However, where large volumes of soil are tobe treated, this cost can be more than offset by reusing cleanmaterial on the site (therefore avoiding the cost of transportto an off-site centralized treatment facility, and avoiding thecost of importing clean fill).

5.2.1. Principles of Soil Washing. Soil washing is a volumereduction/waste minimization treatment technology basedon physical and/or chemical processes. With physical soilwashing, differences between particle grain size, settlingvelocity, specific gravity, surface chemical behaviour, andrarely magnetic properties are used to separate those par-ticles which host the majority of the contamination fromthe bulk which are contaminant-depleted. The equipment

used is standard mineral processing equipment, which ismore generally used in the mining industry [91]. Mineralprocessing techniques as applied to soil remediation havebeen reviewed in literature [97].

With chemical soil washing, soil particles are cleanedby selectively transferring the contaminants on the soil intosolution. Since heavy metals are sparingly soluble and occurpredominantly in a sorbed state, washing the soils with wateralone would be expected to remove too low an amount ofcations in the leachates, chemical agents have to be added tothe washing water [98]. This is achieved by mixing the soilwith aqueous solutions of acids, alkalis, complexants, othersolvents, and surfactants. The resulting cleaned particles arethen separated from the resulting aqueous solution. Thissolution is then treated to remove the contaminants (e.g., bysorption on activated carbon or ion exchange) [91, 95].

The effectiveness of washing is closely related to the abil-ity of the extracting solution to dissolve the metal contam-inants in soils. However, the strong bonds between the soiland metals make the cleaning process difficult [99]. There-fore, only extractants capable of dissolving large quantitiesof metals would be suitable for cleaning purposes. The real-ization that the goal of soil remediation is to remove themetal and preserve the natural soil properties limits thechoice of extractants that can be used in the cleaning process[100].

5.2.2. Chemical Extractants for Soil Washing. Owing to thedifferent nature of heavy metals, extracting solutions that canoptimally remove them must be carefully sought during soilwashing. Several classes of chemicals used for soil wash-ing include surfactants, cosolvents, cyclodextrins, chelatingagents, and organic acids [101–106]. All these soil washingextractants have been developed on a case-by-case basis de-pending on the contaminant type at a particular site. A fewstudies have indicated that the solubilization/exchange/ex-traction of heavy metals by washing solutions differs consid-erably for different soil types. Strong acids attack and degradethe soil crystalline structure at extended contact times. Forless damaging washes, organic acids and chelating agents areoften suggested as alternatives to straight mineral acid use[107].

Natural, low-molecular-weight organic acids (LMWOAs)including oxalic, citric, formic, acetic, malic, succinic, mal-onic, maleic, lactic, aconitic, and fumaric acids are naturalproducts of root exudates, microbial secretions, and plantand animal residue decomposition in soils [108]. Thus metaldissolution by organic acids is likely to be more representa-tive of a mobile metal fraction that is available to biota [109].The chelating organic acids are able to dislodge the exchange-able, carbonate, and reducible fractions of heavy metals bywashing procedures [94]. Although many chelating com-pounds including citric acid [108], tartaric acid [110], andEDTA [94, 100, 111] for mobilizing heavy metals have beenevaluated, there remain uncertainties as to the optimal choicefor full-scale application. The identification and quanti-fication of coexisting solid metal species in the soil before andafter treatment are essential to design and assess the efficiency

ISRN Ecology 13

of soil-washing technology [4]. A recent study [112] showedthat changes in Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd, and Pb speciation and uptakeby maize in a sandy loam before and after washing with threechelating organic acids indicated that EDTA and citric acidappeared to offer greater potentials as chelating agents forremediating the permeable soil. Tartaric acid was, however,recommended in events of moderate contamination.

The use of soil washing to remediate contaminated fine-grained soils that contained more than 30% fines fractionhas been reported by several workers [113–115]. Khodadoustet al. [59, 116] have also studied the removal of variousmetals (Pb, Ni, and Zn) from field and clay (kaolin) soilsamples using a broad spectrum of extractants (chelatingagents and organic acids). Chen and Hong [117] reportedon the chelating extraction of Pb and Cu from an authenticcontaminated soil using derivatives of iminodiacetic acid andL-cyestein. Wuana et al. [118] investigated the removal of Pband Cu from kaolin and bulk clay soils using two mineralacids (HCl and H2SO4) and chelating agents (EDTA andoxalic acid). The use of chelating organic acids—citric acid,tartaric acid and EDTA in the simultaneous removal of Ni,Cu, Zn, Cd, and Pb from an experimentally contaminatedsandy loam was carried out by Wuana et al. [112]. Thesestudies furnished valuable information on the distributionof heavy metals in the soils and their removal using variousextracting solutions.

5.3. Phytoremediation. Phytoremediation, also called greenremediation, botanoremediation, agroremediation, or vege-tative remediation, can be defined as an in situ remediationstrategy that uses vegetation and associated microbiota, soilamendments, and agronomic techniques to remove, contain,or render environmental contaminants harmless [119, 120].The idea of using metal-accumulating plants to remove heavymetals and other compounds was first introduced in 1983,but the concept has actually been implemented for the past300 years on wastewater discharges [121, 122]. Plants maybreak down or degrade organic pollutants or remove andstabilize metal contaminants. The methods used to phytore-mediate metal contaminants are slightly different from thoseused to remediate sites polluted with organic contaminants.As it is a relatively new technology, phytoremediation is stillmostly in its testing stages and as such has not been used inmany places as a full-scale application. However, it has beentested successfully in many places around the world for manydifferent contaminants. Phytoremediation is energy efficient,aesthetically pleasing method of remediating sites with low-to-moderate levels of contamination, and it can be used inconjunction with other more traditional remedial methodsas a finishing step to the remedial process.

The advantages of phytoremediation compared withclassical remediation are that (i) it is more economicallyviable using the same tools and supplies as agriculture, (ii)it is less disruptive to the environment and does not involvewaiting for new plant communities to recolonize the site,(iii) disposal sites are not needed, (iv) it is more likely to beaccepted by the public as it is more aesthetically pleasing thentraditional methods, (v) it avoids excavation and transport of

polluted media thus reducing the risk of spreading the con-tamination, and (vi) it has the potential to treat sites pollutedwith more than one type of pollutant. The disadvantagesare as follow (i) it is dependant on the growing conditionsrequired by the plant (i.e., climate, geology, altitude, andtemperature), (ii) large-scale operations require access toagricultural equipment and knowledge, (iii) success is depen-dant on the tolerance of the plant to the pollutant, (iv)contaminants collected in senescing tissues may be releasedback into the environment in autumn, (v) contaminants maybe collected in woody tissues used as fuel, (vi) time takento remediate sites far exceeds that of other technologies,(vii) contaminant solubility may be increased leading togreater environmental damage and the possibility of leach-ing. Potentially useful phytoremediation technologies forremediation of heavy metal-contaminated soils include phy-toextraction (phytoaccumulation), phytostabilization, andphytofiltration [123].

5.3.1. Phytoextraction (Phytoaccumulation). Phytoextractionis the name given to the process where plant roots uptakemetal contaminants from the soil and translocate them totheir above soil tissues. A plant used for phytoremediationneeds to be heavy-metal tolerant, grow rapidly with a highbiomass yield per hectare, have high metal-accumulatingability in the foliar parts, have a profuse root system, anda high bioaccumulation factor [21, 124]. Phytoextractionis, no doubt, a publicly appealing (green) remediationtechnology [125]. Two approaches have been proposed forphytoextraction of heavy metals, namely, continuous ornatural phytoextraction and chemically enhanced phytoex-traction [126, 127].

Continuous or Natural Phytoextraction. Continuous phy-toextraction is based on the use of natural hyperaccumu-lator plants with exceptional metal-accumulating capacity.Hyperaccumulators are species capable of accumulatingmetals at levels 100-fold greater than those typically mea-sured in shoots of the common nonaccumulator plants.Thus, a hyperaccumulator plant will concentrate more than10 mg kg−1 Hg, 100 mg kg−1 Cd, 1000 mg kg−1 Co, Cr, Cu,and Pb; 10 000 mg kg−1 Zn and Ni [128, 129]. Hyperaccumu-lator plant species are used on metalliferous sites due to theirtolerance of relatively high levels of pollution. Approximately400 plant species from at least 45 plant families have beenso far, reported to hyperaccumulate metals [22, 127]; someof the families are Brassicaceae, Fabaceae, Euphorbiaceae,Asterraceae, Lamiaceae, and Scrophulariaceae [130, 131].Crops like alpine pennycress (Thlaspi caerulescens), Ipomeaalpine, Haumaniastrum robertii, Astragalus racemosus, Seber-tia acuminate have very high bioaccumulation potentialfor Cd/Zn, Cu, Co, Se, and Ni, respectively [22]. Willow(Salix viminalis L.), Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.),corn (Zea mays L.), and sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.)have reportedly shown high uptake and tolerance to heavymetals [132]. A list of some plant hyperaccumulators aregiven in Table 6. A number of processes are involved duringphytoextraction of metals from soil: (i) a metal fraction is

14 ISRN Ecology

Table 6: Some metal hyperaccumulating plants [21].

Plant Metal Concentration (mg kg−1)

Dicotyledons

Cystus ladanifer

Cd 309

Co 2 667

Cr 2 667

Ni 4 164

Zn 7 695

Thlaspi caerulescensCd 10 000–15 000

Zn 10 000–15 000

Arabidopsis halleri Cd 5 900–31 000

Alyssum sp. Ni 4 200–24 400

Brassica junicaPb 10 000–15 000

Zn 2 600

Betula Zn 528

Grasses

Vetiveria zizaniodes

Zn 0.03Paspalum notatum

Stenotaphrum secundatum

Pennisetum glaucum

sorbed at root surface, (ii) bioavailable metal moves acrosscellular membrane into root cells, (iii) a fraction of themetal absorbed into roots is immobilized in the vacuole, (iv)intracellular mobile metal crosses cellular membranes intoroot vascular tissue (xylem), and (v) metal is translocatedfrom the root to aerial tissues (stems and leaves) [22]. Onceinside the plant, most metals are too insoluble to movefreely in the vascular system so they usually form carbonate,sulphate, or phosphate precipitate immobilizing them inapoplastic (extracellular) and symplastic (intracellular) com-partments [46]. Hyperaccumulators have several beneficialcharacteristics but may tend to be slow growing and producelow biomass, and years or decades are needed to clean upcontaminated sites. To overcome these shortfalls, chemicallyenhanced phytoextraction has been developed. The approachmakes use of high biomass crops that are induced to takeup large amounts of metals when their mobility in soil isenhanced by chemical treatment with chelating organic acids[133].

Chelate-Assisted (Induced) Phytoextraction. For more than10 years, chelant-enhanced phytoextraction of metals fromcontaminated soils have received much attention as a cost-effective alternative to conventional techniques of enhancedsoil remediation [133, 134]. When the chelating agent isapplied to the soil, metal-chelant complexes are formed andtaken up by the plant, mostly through a passive apoplasticpathway [133]. Unless the metal ion is transported as anoncationic chelate, apoplastic transport is further limited bythe high cation exchange capacity of cell walls [46]. Chelatorshave been isolated from plants that are strongly involvedin the uptake of heavy metals and their detoxification. Thechelating agent EDTA has become one of the most testedmobilizing amendments for less mobile/available metals

such as Pb [135, 136]. Chelators have been isolated fromplants that are strongly involved in the uptake of heavymetals and their detoxification. The addition of EDTA to aPb-contaminated soil (total soil Pb 2500 mg kg−1) increasedshoot lead concentration of Zea mays L. (corn) and Pisunsativum (pea) from less than 500 mg kg−1 to more than10,000 mg kg−1. Enhanced accumulation of metals by plantspecies with EDTA treatment is attributed to many factorsworking either singly or in combination. These factors in-clude (i) an increase in the concentration of available metals,(ii) enhanced metal-EDTA complex movement to roots, (iii)less binding of metal-EDTA complexes with the negativelycharged cell wall constituents, (iv) damage to physiologicalbarriers in roots either due to greater concentration of metalsor EDTA or metal-EDTA complexes, and (v) increased mo-bility of metals within the plant body when complexedwith EDTA compared to free-metal ions facilitating thetranslocation of metals from roots to shoots [134, 137]. Forthe chelates tested, the order of effectiveness in increasingPb desorption from the soil was EDTA > hydroxyethyl-ethylene-diaminetriacetic acid (HEDTA) > diethylenetri-aminepentaacetic acid (DTPA) > ethylenediamine di(o-hyroxyphenylacetic acid) EDDHA [135]. Vassil et al. [138]reported that Brassica juncea exposed to Pb and EDTAin hydroponic solution was able to accumulate up to55 mM kg−1 Pb in dry shoot tissue (1.1% w/w). This repre-sents a 75-fold concentration of lead in shoot over that insolution. A 0.25 mM threshold concentration of EDTA wasrequired to stimulate this dramatic accumulation of bothlead and EDTA in shoots. Since EDTA has been associatedwith high toxicity and persistence in the environment, severalother alternatives have been proposed. Of all those, EDDS([S,S]-ethylenediamine disuccinate) has been introduced asa promising and environmentally friendlier mobilizing agent,especially for Cu and Zn [135, 139, 140]. Once the plantshave grown and absorbed the metal pollutants, they areharvested and disposed of safely. This process is repeatedseveral times to reduce contamination to acceptable levels.

Interestingly, in the last few years, the possibility of plant-ing metal hyperaccumulator crops over a low-grade ore bodyor mineralized soil, and then harvesting and incinerating thebiomass to produce a commercial bio-ore has been proposed[141] though this is usually reserved for use with preciousmetals. This process called phytomining offers the possibilityof exploiting ore bodies that are otherwise uneconomic tomine, and its effect on the environment is minimal whencompared with erosion caused by opencast mining [123,141].

Assessing the Efficiency of Phytoextraction. Depending onheavy metal concentration in the contaminated soil and thetarget values sought for in the remediated soil, phytoextrac-tion may involve repeated cropping of the plant until themetal concentration drops to acceptable levels. The ability ofthe plant to account for the decrease in soil metal concentra-tions as a function of metal uptake and biomass productionplays an important role in achieving regulatory acceptance.Theoretically, metal removal can be accounted for by de-termining metal concentration in the plant, multiplied by

ISRN Ecology 15

the reduction in soil metal concentrations [127]. It should,however, be borne in mind that this approach may be chal-lenged by a number of factors working together duringfield applications. Practically, the bioaccumulation factor,f , amount of metal extracted, M (mg/kg plant) and phy-toremediation time, tp (year) [142] can be used to evaluate

the plant’s phytoextraction efficiency and calculated accord-ing to equation (3) [143] by assuming that the plant can becropped n times each year and metal pollution occurs only inthe active rooting zone, that is, top soil layer (0–20 cm) andstill assuming a soil bulk density of 1.3 t/m3, giving a total soilmass of 2600 t/ha.

f = Metal concentration in plant shootMetal concentration in soil

,

M(mg/kg plant

) = Metal concentration in plant tissue× Biomass,

tp(year

) = Metal concentration in soil needed to decrease× Soil massMetal concentration in plant shoot× Plant shoot biomass× n

.

(3)

Prospects of Phytoextraction. One of the key aspects of theacceptance of phytoextraction pertains to its performance,ultimate utilization of byproducts, and its overall economicviability. Commercialization of phytoextraction has beenchallenged by the expectation that site remediation should beachieved in a time comparable to other clean-up technologies[123]. Genetic engineering has a great role to play in sup-plementing the list of plants available for phytoremediationby the use of engineering tools to insert into plants thosegenes that will enable the plant to metabolize a particularpollutant [144]. A major goal of plant genetic engineering isto enhance the ability of plants to metabolize many of thecompounds that are of environmental concern. Currently,some laboratories are using traditional breeding techniques,others are creating protoplast-fusion hybrids, and still othersare looking at the direct insertion of novel genes to enhancethe metabolic capabilities of plants [144]. On the whole,phytoextraction appears a very promising technology for theremoval of metal pollutants from the environment and is atpresent approaching commercialization.

Possible Utilization of Biomass after Phytoextraction. A seri-ous challenge for the commercialization of phytoextractionhas been the disposal of contaminated plant biomass espe-cially in the case of repeated cropping where large tonnagesof biomass may be produced. The biomass has to be stored,disposed of or utilized in an appropriate manner so as notto pose any environmental risk. The major constituentsof biomass material are lignin, hemicellulose, cellulose,minerals, and ash. It possesses high moisture and volatilematter, low bulk density, and calorific value [127]. Biomass issolar energy fixed in plants in form of carbon, hydrogen, andoxygen (oxygenated hydrocarbons) with a possible generalchemical formula CH1.44O0.66. Controlled combustion andgasification of biomass can yield a mixture of producer gasand/or pyro-gas which leads to the generation of thermal andelectrical energy [145]. Composting and compacting can beemployed as volume reduction approaches to biomass reuse[146]. Ashing of biomass can produce bio-ores especiallyafter the phytomining of precious metals. Heavy metals suchas Co, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, Ni, and Zn are plant essential metals,

and most plants have the ability to accumulate them [147].The high concentrations of these metals in the harvestedbiomass can be “diluted” to acceptable concentrations bycombining the biomass with clean biomass in formulationsof fertilizer and fodder.

5.3.2. Phytostabilization. Phytostabilization, also referred toas in-place inactivation, is primarily concerned with the useof certain plants to immobilize soil sediment and sludges[148]. Contaminant are absorbed and accumulated by roots,adsorbed onto the roots, or precipitated in the rhizosphere.This reduces or even prevents the mobility of the contam-inants preventing migration into the groundwater or airand also reduces the bioavailability of the contaminant thuspreventing spread through the food chain. Plants for use inphytostabilization should be able to (i) decrease the amountof water percolating through the soil matrix, which mayresult in the formation of a hazardous leachate, (ii) act asbarrier to prevent direct contact with the contaminated soil,and (iii) prevent soil erosion and the distribution of thetoxic metal to other areas [46]. Phytostabilization can occurthrough the process of sorption, precipitation, complexation,or metal valence reduction. This technique is useful for thecleanup of Pb, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, and Zn [147]. It can also beused to reestablish a plant community on sites that have beendenuded due to the high levels of metal contamination. Oncea community of tolerant species has been established, thepotential for wind erosion (and thus spread of the pollutant)is reduced, and leaching of the soil contaminants is alsoreduced. Phytostabilization is advantageous because disposalof hazardous material/biomass is not required, and it is veryeffective when rapid immobilization is needed to preserveground and surface waters [147, 148].

5.3.3. Phytofiltration . Phytofiltration is the use of plant roots(rhizofiltration) or seedlings (blastofiltration), is similar inconcept to phytoextraction, but is used to absorb or adsorbpollutants, mainly metals, from groundwater and aqueous-waste streams rather than the remediation of polluted soils[3, 123]. Rhizosphere is the soil area immediately surround-ing the plant root surface, typically up to a few millimetres

16 ISRN Ecology

from the root surface. The contaminants are either adsorbedonto the root surface or are absorbed by the plant roots.Plants used for rhizofiltration are not planted directly insitu but are acclimated to the pollutant first. Plants arehydroponically grown in clean water rather than soil, untila large root system has developed. Once a large root systemis in place, the water supply is substituted for a pollutedwater supply to acclimatize the plant. After the plants becomeacclimatized, they are planted in the polluted area where theroots uptake the polluted water and the contaminants alongwith it. As the roots become saturated, they are harvested anddisposed of safely. Repeated treatments of the site can reducepollution to suitable levels as was exemplified in Chernobylwhere sunflowers were grown in radioactively contaminatedpools [21].

6. Conclusion

Background knowledge of the sources, chemistry, and poten-tial risks of toxic heavy metals in contaminated soils is neces-sary for the selection of appropriate remedial options. Reme-diation of soil contaminated by heavy metals is necessary inorder to reduce the associated risks, make the land resourceavailable for agricultural production, enhance food security,and scale down land tenure problems. Immobilization, soilwashing, and phytoremediation are frequently listed amongthe best available technologies for cleaning up heavy metalcontaminated soils but have been mostly demonstratedin developed countries. These technologies are recom-mended for field applicability and commercialization in thedeveloping countries also where agriculture, urbanization,and industrialization are leaving a legacy of environmentaldegradation.

References

[1] S. Khan, Q. Cao, Y. M. Zheng, Y. Z. Huang, and Y. G. Zhu,“Health risks of heavy metals in contaminated soils and foodcrops irrigated with wastewater in Beijing, China,” Environ-mental Pollution, vol. 152, no. 3, pp. 686–692, 2008.

[2] M. K. Zhang, Z. Y. Liu, and H. Wang, “Use of single extrac-tion methods to predict bioavailability of heavy metals inpolluted soils to rice,” Communications in Soil Science andPlant Analysis, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 820–831, 2010.

[3] GWRTAC, “Remediation of metals-contaminated soils andgroundwater,” Tech. Rep. TE-97-01,, GWRTAC, Pittsburgh,Pa, USA, 1997, GWRTAC-E Series.

[4] T. A. Kirpichtchikova, A. Manceau, L. Spadini, F. Panfili, M.A. Marcus, and T. Jacquet, “Speciation and solubility of heavymetals in contaminated soil using X-ray microfluorescence,EXAFS spectroscopy, chemical extraction, and thermody-namic modeling,” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol. 70,no. 9, pp. 2163–2190, 2006.

[5] D. C. Adriano, Trace Elements in Terrestrial Environments: Bi-ogeochemistry, Bioavailability and Risks of Metals, Springer,New York, NY, USA, 2nd edition, 2003.

[6] P. Maslin and R. M. Maier, “Rhamnolipid-enhanced miner-alization of phenanthrene in organic-metal co-contaminatedsoils,” Bioremediation Journal, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 295–308,2000.

[7] M. J. McLaughlin, B. A. Zarcinas, D. P. Stevens, and N.Cook, “Soil testing for heavy metals,” Communications in SoilScience and Plant Analysis, vol. 31, no. 11–14, pp. 1661–1700,2000.

[8] M. J. McLaughlin, R. E. Hamon, R. G. McLaren, T. W. Speir,and S. L. Rogers, “Review: a bioavailability-based ratio-nale for controlling metal and metalloid contamination ofagricultural land in Australia and New Zealand,” AustralianJournal of Soil Research, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1037–1086, 2000.

[9] W. Ling, Q. Shen, Y. Gao, X. Gu, and Z. Yang, “Use of ben-tonite to control the release of copper from contaminatedsoils,” Australian Journal of Soil Research, vol. 45, no. 8, pp.618–623, 2007.

[10] A. Kabata-Pendias and H. Pendias, Trace Metals in Soils andPlants, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 2nd edition, 2001.

[11] Q. Zhao and J. J. Kaluarachchi, “Risk assessment at hazardouswaste-contaminated sites with variability of population char-acteristics,” Environment International, vol. 28, no. 1-2, pp.41–53, 2002.

[12] N. S. Bolan, B.G. Ko, C.W.N. Anderson, and I. Vogeler,“Solute interactions in soils in relation to bioavailabilityand remediation of the environment,” in Proceedings of the5th International Symposium of Interactions of Soil Mineralswith Organic Components and Microorganisms, Pucon, Chile,November 2008.

[13] G. M. Pierzynski, J. T. Sims, and G. F. Vance, Soils andEnvironmental Quality, CRC Press, London, UK, 2nd edition,2000.

[14] J. J. D’Amore, S. R. Al-Abed, K. G. Scheckel, and J. A. Ryan,“Methods for speciation of metals in soils: a review,” Journalof Environmental Quality, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1707–1745, 2005.

[15] B. J. Alloway, Heavy Metals in Soils, Blackie Academic andProfessional, London, UK, 2nd edition, 1995.

[16] E. Lombi and M. H. Gerzabek, “Determination of mobileheavy metal fraction in soil: results of a pot experiment withsewage sludge,” Communications in Soil Science and PlantAnalysis, vol. 29, no. 17-18, pp. 2545–2556, 1998.

[17] G. Sposito and A. L. Page, “Cycling of metal ions in the soilenvironment,” in Metal Ions in Biological Systems, H. Sigel,Ed., vol. 18 of Circulation of Metals in the Environment, pp.287–332, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 1984.

[18] S. Kuo, P. E. Heilman, and A. S. Baker, “Distribution andforms of copper, zinc, cadmium, iron, and manganese in soilsnear a copper smelter,” Soil Science, vol. 135, no. 2, pp. 101–109, 1983.

[19] M. Kaasalainen and M. Yli-Halla, “Use of sequential extrac-tion to assess metal partitioning in soils,” EnvironmentalPollution, vol. 126, no. 2, pp. 225–233, 2003.

[20] N. T. Basta, J. A. Ryan, and R. L. Chaney, “Trace elementchemistry in residual-treated soil: key concepts and metalbioavailability,” Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 34, no.1, pp. 49–63, 2005.

[21] A. Scragg, Environmental Biotechnology, Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford, UK, 2nd edition, 2006.

[22] M.M. Lasat, “Phytoextraction of metals from contaminatedsoil: a review of plant/soil/metal interaction and assessmentof pertinent agronomic issues,” Journal of Hazardous Sub-stances Research, vol. 2, pp. 1–25, 2000.

[23] L. H. P. Jones and S. C. Jarvis, “The fate of heavy metals,” inThe Chemistry of Soil Processes, D. J. Green and M. H. B.Hayes, Eds., p. 593, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA,1981.

ISRN Ecology 17

[24] P. H. Raven, L. R. Berg, and G. B. Johnson, Environment,Saunders College Publishing, New York, NY, USA, 2nd edi-tion, 1998.

[25] M. E. Sumner, “Beneficial use of effluents, wastes, and bio-solids,” Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis,vol. 31, no. 11–14, pp. 1701–1715, 2000.

[26] R. L. Chaney and D. P. Oliver, “Sources, potential adverseeffects and remediation of agricultural soil contaminants,”in Contaminants and the Soil Environments in the Australia-Pacific Region, R. Naidu, Ed., pp. 323–359, Kluwer AcademicPublishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1996.

[27] USEPA, “A plain english guide to the EPA part 503 biosolidsrule,” USEPA Rep. 832/R-93/003, USEPA, Washington, DC,USA, 1994.

[28] K. Weggler, M. J. McLaughlin, and R. D. Graham, “Effectof Chloride in Soil Solution on the Plant Availability ofBiosolid-Borne Cadmium,” Journal of Environmental Qual-ity, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 496–504, 2004.

[29] M. L. A. Silveira, L. R. F. Alleoni, and, and L. R. G. Guilherme,“Biosolids and heavy metals in soils,” Scientia Agricola, vol.60, no. 4, pp. 64–111, 2003.

[30] R. Canet, F. Pomares, F. Tarazona, and M. Estela, “Sequentialfractionation and plant availability of heavy metals as affectedby sewage sludge applications to soil,” Communications inSoil Science and Plant Analysis, vol. 29, no. 5-6, pp. 697–716,1998.

[31] S. V. Mattigod and A. L. Page, “Assessment of metal pollutionin soil,” in Applied Environmental Geochemistry, pp. 355–394,Academic Press, London, UK, 1983.

[32] R. G. McLaren, L. M. Clucas, and M. D. Taylor, “Leachingof macronutrients and metals from undisturbed soils treatedwith metal-spiked sewage sludge. 3. Distribution of residualmetals,” Australian Journal of Soil Research, vol. 43, no. 2, pp.159–170, 2005.

[33] C. Keller, S. P. McGrath, and S. J. Dunham, “Trace metalleaching through a soil-grassland system after sewage sludgeapplication,” Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 31, no. 5,pp. 1550–1560, 2002.

[34] R. G. McLaren, L. M. Clucas, M. D. Taylor, and T. Hendry,“Leaching of macronutrients and metals from undisturbedsoils treated with metal-spiked sewage sludge. 2. Leaching ofmetals,” Australian Journal of Soil Research, vol. 42, no. 4, pp.459–471, 2004.

[35] S. C. Reed, R. W. Crites, and E. J. Middlebrooks, NaturalSystems for Waste Management and Treatment, McGraw-Hill,New York, NY, USA, 2nd edition, 1995.

[36] J. Bjuhr, Trace Metals in Soils Irrigated with Waste Water ina Periurban Area Downstream Hanoi City, Vietnam, SeminarPaper, Institutionen for markvetenskap, Sveriges lantbruk-suniversitet (SLU), Uppsala, Sweden, 2007.

[37] P. S. DeVolder, S. L. Brown, D. Hesterberg, and K. Pandya,“Metal bioavailability and speciation in a wetland tailingsrepository amended with biosolids compost, wood ash, andsulfate,” Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 32, no. 3, pp.851–864, 2003.

[38] N. T. Basta and R. Gradwohl, “Remediation of heavy metal-contaminated soil using rock phosphate,” Better Crops, vol.82, no. 4, pp. 29–31, 1998.

[39] L. A. Smith, J. L. Means, A. Chen et al., Remedial Optionsfor Metals-Contaminated Sites, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton,Fla, USA,, 1995.

[40] USEPA, Report: recent Developments for In Situ Treatmentof Metals contaminated Soils, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,1996.

[41] J. Shiowatana, R. G. McLaren, N. Chanmekha, and A. Sam-phao, “Fractionation of arsenic in soil by a continuous-flow sequential extraction method,” Journal of EnvironmentalQuality, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1940–1949, 2001.

[42] J. Buekers, Fixation of cadmium, copper, nickel and zinc insoil: kinetics, mechanisms and its effect on metal bioavailability,Ph.D. thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Lueven, 2007, Disserta-tiones De Agricultura, Doctoraatsprooefschrift nr.

[43] D. B. Levy, K. A. Barbarick, E. G. Siemer, and L. E. Sommers,“Distribution and partitioning of trace metals in contami-nated soils near Leadville, Colorado,” Journal of Environmen-tal Quality, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 185–195, 1992.

[44] USDHHS, Toxicological profile for lead, United States Depart-ment of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Ga, USA, 1999.

[45] S.E. Manahan, Toxicological Chemistry and Biochemistry,CRC Press, Limited Liability Company (LLC), 3rd edition,2003.

[46] I. Raskin and B. D. Ensley, Phytoremediation of Toxic Met-als:Using Plants to Clean Up the Environment, John Wiley &Sons, New York, NY, USA, 2000.

[47] NSC, Lead Poisoning, National Safety Council, 2009, http://www.nsc.org/news resources/Resources/Documents/LeadPoisoning.pdf.

[48] D. R. Baldwin and W. J. Marshall, “Heavy metal poisoningand its laboratory investigation,” Annals of Clinical Biochem-istry, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 267–300, 1999.

[49] C.J. Rosen, Lead in the home garden and urban soil environ-ment, Communication and Educational Technology Services,University of Minnesota Extension, 2002.

[50] P. Chrostowski, J. L. Durda, and K. G. Edelmann, “The useof natural processes for the control of chromium migration,”Remediation, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 341–351, 1991.

[51] I. Bodek, W. J. Lyman, W. F. Reehl, and D. H. Rosenblatt, inEnvironmental Inorganic Chemistry: Properties, Processes andEstimation Methods, Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY, USA,1988.

[52] B. E. Davies and L. H. P. Jones, “Micronutrients and toxicelements,” in Russell’s Soil Conditions and Plant Growth, A.Wild, Ed., pp. 781–814, John Wiley & Sons; Interscience, NewYork, NY, USA, 11th edition, 1988.

[53] K. M. Greany, An assessment of heavy metal contaminationin the marine sediments of Las Perlas Archipelago, Gulf ofPanama, M.S. thesis, School of Life Sciences Heriot-WattUniversity, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2005.

[54] P. G. C. Campbell, “Cadmium-A priority pollutant,” Environ-mental Chemistry, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 387–388, 2006.

[55] VCI, Copper history/Future, Van Commodities Inc., 2011,http://trademetalfutures.com/copperhistory.html.

[56] C. E. Martınez and H. L. Motto, “Solubility of lead, zinc andcopper added to mineral soils,” Environmental Pollution, vol.107, no. 1, pp. 153–158, 2000.

[57] J. Eriksson, A. Andersson, and R. Andersson, “The state ofSwedish farmlands,” Tech. Rep. 4778, Swedish EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden, 1997.

[58] M. Pourbaix, Atlas of Electrochemical Equilibria, PergamonPress, New York, NY, USA, 1974, Translated from French byJ.A. Franklin.

[59] A. P. Khodadoust, K. R. Reddy, and K. Maturi, “Removalof nickel and phenanthrene from kaolin soil using differentextractants,” Environmental Engineering Science, vol. 21, no.6, pp. 691–704, 2004.

18 ISRN Ecology

[60] DPR-EGASPIN, Environmental Guidelines and Standards forthe Petroleum Industry in Nigeria (EGASPIN), Department ofPetroleum Resources, Lagos, Nigeria, 2002.

[61] A. Tessier, P. G. C. Campbell, and M. Blsson, “Sequentialextraction procedure for the speciation of particulate tracemetals,” Analytical Chemistry, vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 844–851,1979.

[62] A. M. Ure, PH. Quevauviller, H. Muntau, and B. Griepink,“Speciation of heavy metals in soils and sediments. Anaccount of the improvement and harmonization of extrac-tion techniques undertaken under the auspices of the BCRof Commission of the European Communities,” InternationalJournal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry, vol. 51, no. 1,pp. 35–151, 1993.

[63] D. M. DiToro, J. D. Mahony, D. J. Hansen, K. J. Scott, A. R.Carlson, and G. T. Ankley, “Acid volatile sulfide predicts theacute toxicity of cadmium and nickel in sediments,” Envi-ronmental Science and Technology, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 96–101,1992.

[64] R. G. Riley, J. M. Zachara, and F. J. Wobber, “Chemicalcontaminants on DOE lands and selection of contaminatedmixtures for subsurface science research,” US-DOE, EnergyResource Subsurface Science Program, Washington, DC,USA, 1992.

[65] NJDEP, Soil Cleanup Criteria, New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection, Proposed Cleanup Standards forContaminated Sites, NJAC 7:26D, 1996.

[66] T. A. Martin and M. V. Ruby, “Review of in situ remediationtechnologies for lead, zinc and cadmium in soil,” Remedia-tion, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 35–53, 2004.

[67] S. K. Gupta, T. Herren, K. Wenger, R. Krebs, and T. Hari,“In situ gentle remediation measures for heavy metal-pol-luted soils,” in Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soil andWater, N. Terry and G. Banuelos, Eds., pp. 303–322, LewisPublishers, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 2000.

[68] USEPA, “Treatment technologies for site cleanup: annualstatus report (12th Edition),” Tech. Rep. EPA-542-R-07-012,Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5203P), Washington,DC, USA, 2007.

[69] USEPA, “Recent developments for in situ treatment of metalcontaminated soils,” Tech. Rep. EPA-542-R-97-004, USEPA,Washington, DC, USA, 1997.

[70] Y. Hashimoto, H. Matsufuru, M. Takaoka, H. Tanida, and T.Sato, “Impacts of chemical amendment and plant growth onlead speciation and enzyme activities in a shooting range soil:an X-ray absorption fine structure investigation,” Journal ofEnvironmental Quality, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 1420–1428, 2009.

[71] N. Finzgar, B. Kos, and D. Lestan, “Bioavailability andmobility of Pb after soil treatment with different remediationmethods,” Plant, Soil and Environment, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 25–34, 2006.

[72] J. Boisson, M. Mench, J. Vangronsveld, A. Ruttens, P. Kop-ponen, and T. De Koe, “Immobilization of trace metals andarsenic by different soil additives: evaluation by means ofchemical extractions,” Communications in Soil Science andPlant Analysis, vol. 30, no. 3-4, pp. 365–387, 1999.

[73] E. Lombi, F. J. Zhao, G. Zhang et al., “In situ fixation of metalsin soils using bauxite residue: chemical assessment,” Environ-mental Pollution, vol. 118, no. 3, pp. 435–443, 2002.

[74] C. O. Anoduadi, L. B. Okenwa, F. E. Okieimen, A. T. Tyowua,and E.G. Uwumarongie-Ilori, “Metal immobilization in CCAcontaminated soil using laterite and termite mound soil.Evaluation by chemical fractionation,” Nigerian Journal ofApplied Science, vol. 27, pp. 77–87, 2009.

[75] L. Q. Wang, L. Luo, Y. B Ma, D. P. Wei, and L. Hua, “In situimmobilization remediation of heavy metals-contaminatedsoils: a review,” Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 20,no. 5, pp. 1214–1222, 2009.

[76] F. R. Evanko and D. A. Dzombak, “Remediation of metalscontaminated soils and groundwater,” Tech. Rep. TE-97-01, Groundwater Remediation Technologies Analysis Centre,Pittsburg, Pa, USA, 1997.

[77] E. M. Fawzy, “Soil remediation using in situ immobilisationtechniques,” Chemistry and Ecology, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 147–156, 2008.

[78] M. Farrell, W. T. Perkins, P. J. Hobbs, G. W. Griffith, andD. L. Jones, “Migration of heavy metals in soil as influencedby compost amendments,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 158,no. 1, pp. 55–64, 2010.

[79] P. Bishop, D. Gress, and J. Olafsson, “Cement stabilizationof heavy metals:Leaching rate assessment,” in IndustrialWastes- Proceedings of the 14th Mid-Atlantic Industrial WasteConference, Technomics, Lancaster, Pa, USA, 1982.

[80] W. Shively, P. Bishop, D. Gress, and T. Brown, “Leaching testsof heavy metals stabilized with Portland cement,” Journal ofthe Water Pollution Control Federation, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 234–241, 1986.

[81] USEPA, “Interference mechanisms in waste stabilization/so-lidification processes,” Tech. Rep. EPA/540/A5-89/004, Unit-ed States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Re-search and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, 1990.

[82] G. Guo, Q. Zhou, and L. Q. Ma, “Availability and assessmentof fixing additives for the in situ remediation of heavy metalcontaminated soils: a review,” Environmental Monitoring andAssessment, vol. 116, no. 1–3, pp. 513–528, 2006.

[83] J. R. Conner, Chemical Fixation and Solidification of Haz-ardous Wastes, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, USA,1990.

[84] USEPA, “Stabilization/solidification of CERCLA and RCRAwastes,” Tech. Rep. EPA/625/6-89/022, United States Envi-ronmental Protection Agency, Center for EnvironmentalResearch Information, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, 1989.

[85] USEPA, “ International waste technologies/geo-con in situstabilization/solidification,” Tech. Rep. EPA/540/A5-89/004,United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofResearch and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, 1990.

[86] B. H. Jasperse and C. R. Ryan, “Stabilization and fixationusing soil mixing,” in Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty Con-ference on Grouting, Soil Improvement, and Geosynthetics,ASCE Publications, Reston, Va, USA, 1992.

[87] C. R. Ryan and A. D. Walker, “Soil mixing for soil improve-ment,” in Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on In situ SoilModification, Geo-Con, Inc., Louisville, Ky, USA, 1992.

[88] USEPA, “Vitrification technologies for treatment of Haz-ardous and radioactive waste handbook,” Tech. Rep. EPA/625/R-92/002, United States Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Research and Development, Washington,DC, USA, 1992.

[89] J. L. Buelt and L. E. Thompson, The In situ VitrificationIntegrated Program: Focusing on an Innovative Solution onEnvironmental Restoration Needs, Battelle Pacific NorthwestLaboratory, Richland, Wash, USA, 1992.

[90] A. Jang, Y. S. Choi, and I. S. Kim, “Batch and column tests forthe development of an immobilization technology for toxicheavy metals in contaminated soils of closed mines,” WaterScience and Technology, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 81–88, 1998.

ISRN Ecology 19

[91] G. Dermont, M. Bergeron, G. Mercier, and M. Richer-Lafleche, “Soil washing for metal removal: a review of phys-ical/chemical technologies and field applications,” Journal ofHazardous Materials, vol. 152, no. 1, pp. 1–31, 2008.

[92] P. Wood, “Remediation methods for contaminated sites,” inContaminated Land and Its Reclamation, R. Hester and R.Harrison, Eds., Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UK,1997.

[93] GOC, “Site Remediation Technologies: A Reference Manual,”2003, Contaminated Sites Working Group, Government ofCanada, Ontario, Canada.

[94] R. W. Peters, “Chelant extraction of heavy metals from con-taminated soils,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 66, no.1-2, pp. 151–210, 1999.

[95] CLAIRE, “Understanding soil washing, contaminated land:applications in real environments,” Tech. Rep. TB13, 2007.

[96] M. Pearl and P. Wood, “Review of pilot and full scale soilwashing plants,” Warren Spring Laboratory Report LR 1018,Department of the Environment, AEA Technology NationalEnvironmental Technology Centre, 1994, B551 Harwell,Oxfordshire, OX11 0RA.

[97] A. Gosselin, M. Blackburn, and M. Bergeron, Assessment Pro-tocol of the applicability of ore-processing technology to TreatContaminated Soils, Sediments and Sludges, prepared for Eco-Technology innovation Section, Eco-Technology InnovationSection, Technology Development and Demonstration Pro-gram, Environment Canada, Canada, 1999.

[98] A. P. Davis and I. Singh, “Washing of zinc(II) from contam-inated soil column,” Journal of Environmental Engineering,vol. 121, no. 2, pp. 174–185, 1995.

[99] D. Gombert, “Soil washing and radioactive contamination,”Environmental Progress, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 138–142, 1994.

[100] R. S. Tejowulan and W. H. Hendershot, “Removal of tracemetals from contaminated soils using EDTA incorporatingresin trapping techniques,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 103,no. 1, pp. 135–142, 1998.

[101] USEPA, “Engineering bulletin: soil washing treatment,” Tech.Rep. EPA/540/2-90/017, Office of Emergency and RemedialResponse, United States Environmental Protection Agency,Washington, DC, USA, 1990.

[102] A. L. Wood, D. C. Bouchard, M. L. Brusseau, and P. S. C.Rao, “Cosolvent effects on sorption and mobility of organiccontaminants in soils,” Chemosphere, vol. 21, no. 4-5, pp.575–587, 1990.

[103] W. Chu and K. H. Chan, “The mechanism of the surfactant-aided soil washing system for hydrophobic and partialhydrophobic organics,” Science of the Total Environment, vol.307, no. 1–3, pp. 83–92, 2003.

[104] Y. Gao, J. He, W. Ling, H. Hu, and F. Liu, “Effects of organicacids on copper and cadmium desorption from contami-nated soils,” Environment International, vol. 29, no. 5, pp.613–618, 2003.

[105] K. Maturi and K. R. Reddy, “Extractants for the removal ofmixed contaminants from soils,” Soil and Sediment Contami-nation, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 586–608, 2008.

[106] H. Zhang, Z. Dang, L. C. Zheng, and X. Y. Yi, “Remedi-ation of soil co-contaminated with pyrene and cadmiumby growing maize (Zea mays L.),” International Journal ofEnvironmental Science and Technology, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 249–258, 2009.

[107] J. Yu and D. Klarup, “Extraction kinetics of copper, zinc, iron,and manganese from contaminated sediment using dis-odium ethylenediaminetetraacetate,” Water, Air, and SoilPollution, vol. 75, no. 3-4, pp. 205–225, 1994.

[108] R. Naidu and R. D. Harter, “Effect of different organic ligandson cadmium sorption by and extractability from soils,” SoilScience Society of America Journal, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 644–650,1998.

[109] J. Labanowski, F. Monna, A. Bermond et al., “Kinetic extrac-tions to assess mobilization of Zn, Pb, Cu, and Cd in ametal-contaminated soil: EDTA vs. citrate,” EnvironmentalPollution, vol. 152, no. 3, pp. 693–701, 2008.

[110] X. Ke, P. J. Li, Q. X. Zhou, Y. Zhang, and T. H. Sun, “Removalof heavy metals from a contaminated soil using tartaric acid,”Journal of Environmental Sciences, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 727–733,2006.

[111] B. Sun, F. J. Zhao, E. Lombi, and S. P. McGrath, “Leaching ofheavy metals from contaminated soils using EDTA,” Environ-mental Pollution, vol. 113, no. 2, pp. 111–120, 2001.

[112] R. A. Wuana, F. E. Okieimen, and J. A. Imborvungu, “Re-moval of heavy metals from a contaminated soil using or-ganic chelating acids,” International Journal of EnvironmentalScience and Technology, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 485–496, 2010.

[113] H. Farrah and W. F. Pickering, “Extraction of heavy metalions sorbed on clays,” Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, vol. 9,no. 4, pp. 491–498, 1978.

[114] B. J. W. Tuin and M. Tels, “Removing heavy metals fromcontaminated clay soils by extraction with hydrochloric acid,edta or hypochlorite solutions,” Environmental Technology,vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 1039–1052, 1990.

[115] K. R. Reddy and S. Chinthamreddy, “Comparison of extrac-tants for removing heavy metals from contaminated clayeysoils,” Soil and Sediment Contamination, vol. 9, no. 5, pp.449–462, 2000.

[116] A. P. Khodadoust, K. R. Reddy, and K. Maturi, “Effect of dif-ferent extraction agents on metal and organic contaminantremoval from a field soil,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol.117, no. 1, pp. 15–24, 2005.

[117] T. C. Chen and A. Hong, “Chelating extraction of lead andcopper from an authentic contaminated soil using N-(2-acetamido)iminodiacetic acid and S-carboxymethyl-L-cysteine,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 41, no. 2-3, pp.147–160, 1995.

[118] R. A. Wuana, F. E. Okieimen, and R. E. Ikyereve, “Removal oflead and copper from contaminated kaolin and bulk clay soilsusing acids and chelating agents,” Journal of Chemical Societyof Nigeria, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 213–219, 2008.

[119] S. D. Cunningham and D. W. Ow, “Promises and prospectsof phytoremediation,” Plant Physiology, vol. 110, no. 3, pp.715–719, 1996.

[120] H. S. Helmisaari, M. Salemaa, J. Derome, O. Kiikkilo, C.Uhlig, and T. M. Nieminen, “Remediation of heavy metal-contaminated forest soil using recycled organic matter andnative woody plants,” Journal of Environmental Quality, vol.36, no. 4, pp. 1145–1153, 2007.

[121] R. L. Chaney, M. Malik, Y. M. Li et al., “Phytoremediation ofsoil metals,” Current Opinion in Biotechnology, vol. 8, no. 3,pp. 279–284, 1997.

[122] R. J. Henry, An Overview of the Phytoremediation of Lead andMercury, United States Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response TechnologyInnovation office, Washington, DC, USA, 2000.

[123] C. Garbisu and I. Alkorta, “Phytoextraction: a cost-effectiveplant-based technology for the removal of metals from theenvironment,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 229–236, 2001.

[124] C. D. Jadia and M. H. Fulekar, “Phytotoxicity and reme-diation of heavy metals by fibrous root grass (sorghum),”

20 ISRN Ecology

Journal of Applied Biosciences, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 491–499,2008.

[125] M. Vyslouzilova, P. Tlustos, J. Szakova, and D. Pavlıkova, “As,Cd, Pb and Zn uptake by Salix spp. clones grown in soilsenriched by high loads of these elements,” Plant, Soil andEnvironment, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 191–196, 2003.

[126] E. Lombi, F. J. Zhao, S. J. Dunham, and S. P. McGrath, “Phy-toremediation of heavy metal-contaminated soils: naturalhyperaccumulation versus chemically enhanced phytoextrac-tion,” Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 30, no. 6, pp.1919–1926, 2001.

[127] M. Ghosh and S. P. Singh, “A review on phytoremediationof heavy metals and utilization of its byproducts,” AppliedEcology and Environmental Research, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–18,2005.

[128] A. J. M. Baker and R. R. Brooks, “Terrestrial higher plantswhich hyperaccumulate metallic elements: a review of theirdistribution, ecology and phytochemistry,” Biorecovery, vol.1, pp. 81–126, 1989.

[129] M. M. Lasat, “Phytoextraction of toxic metals: a review ofbiological mechanisms,” Journal of Environmental Quality,vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 109–120, 2002.

[130] D. E. Salt, R. D. Smith, and I. Raskin, “Phytoremediation,”Annual Reviews in Plant Physiology & Plant Molecular Biol-ogy, vol. 49, pp. 643–668, 1998.

[131] S. Dushenkov, “Trends in phytoremediation of radionu-clides,” Plant and Soil, vol. 249, no. 1, pp. 167–175, 2003.

[132] U. Schmidt, “Enhancing phytoextraction: the effect of chem-ical soil manipulation on mobility, plant accumulation andleaching of heavy metals,” Journal of Environmental Quality,vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1939–1954, 2003.

[133] B. Nowack, R. Schulin, and B. H. Robinson, “Critical assess-ment of chelant-enhanced metal phytoextraction,” Environ-mental Science and Technology, vol. 40, no. 17, pp. 5225–5232,2006.

[134] M. W. H. Evangelou, M. Ebel, and A. Schaeffer, “Chelateassisted phytoextraction of heavy metals from soil. Effect,mechanism, toxicity, and fate of chelating agents,” Chemo-sphere, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 989–1003, 2007.

[135] J. W. Huang, J. Chen, W. R. Berti, and S. D. Cunning-ham, “Phytoremediadon of lead-contaminated soils: role ofsynthetic chelates in lead phytoextraction,” EnvironmentalScience and Technology, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 800–805, 1997.

[136] Saifullah, E. Meers, M. Qadir et al., “EDTA-assisted Pb phy-toextraction,” Chemosphere, vol. 74, no. 10, pp. 1279–1291,2009.

[137] Y. Xu, N. Yamaji, R. Shen, and J. F. Ma, “Sorghum rootsare inefficient in uptake of EDTA-chelated lead,” Annals ofBotany, vol. 99, no. 5, pp. 869–875, 2007.

[138] A. D. Vassil, Y. Kapulnik, I. Raskin, and D. E. Sait, “Therole of EDTA in lead transport and accumulation by Indianmustard,” Plant Physiology, vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 447–453, 1998.

[139] B. Kos and D. Lestan, “Chelator induced phytoextraction andin situ soil washing of Cu,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 132,no. 2, pp. 333–339, 2004.

[140] S. Tandy, K. Bossart, R. Mueller et al., “Extraction of heavymetals from soils using biodegradable chelating agents,”Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 937–944, 2004.

[141] R. R. Brooks, M. F. Chambers, L. J. Nicks, and B. H. Robin-son, “Phytomining,” Trends in Plant Science, vol. 3, no. 9, pp.359–362, 1998.

[142] P. Zhuang, Z. H. Ye, C. Y. Lan, Z. W. Xie, and W. S. Shu,“Chemically assisted phytoextraction of heavy metal contam-inated soils using three plant species,” Plant and Soil, vol. 276,no. 1-2, pp. 153–162, 2005.

[143] X. Zhang, H. Xia, Z. Li, P. Zhuang, and B. Gao, “Potentialof four forage grasses in remediation of Cd and Zn contami-nated soils,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 101, no. 6, pp. 2063–2066, 2010.

[144] L. A. Newman, S. E. Strand, N. Choe et al., “Uptake and bio-transformation of trichloroethylene by hybrid poplars,” Envi-ronmental Science and Technology, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 1062–1067, 1997.

[145] P. V. R. Iyer, T. R. Rao, and P. D. Grover, Biomass Thermo-chemical Characterization Characterization, Indian Instituteof Technology, Delhi, India, 3rd edition, 2002.

[146] M.D. Hetland, J. R. Gallagher, D. J. Daly, D. J. Hassett, andL. V. Heebink, “Processing of plants used to phytoremediatelead-contaminated sites,” A. Leeson, E. A. Forte, M. K. Banks,and V. S. Magar, Eds., pp. 129–136, Batelle Press.

[147] C. D. Jadia and M. H. Fulekar, “Phytoremediation of heavymetals: recent techniques,” African Journal of Biotechnology,vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 921–928, 2009.

[148] USEPA, “Introduction to phytoremediation,” Tech. Rep.EPA 600/R-99/107, United States Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,Ohio, USA, 2000.

Submit your manuscripts athttp://www.hindawi.com

Forestry ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Environmental and Public Health

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

EcosystemsJournal of

Meteorology

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Advances in

EcologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Marine BiologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com

Applied &EnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

Advances in

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Environmental Chemistry

Atmospheric SciencesInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Waste ManagementJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

International Journal of

Geophysics

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com

Volume 2014

Geological ResearchJournal of

EarthquakesJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com

Volume 2014

BiodiversityInternational Journal of

ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

OceanographyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of Computational Environmental SciencesHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

ClimatologyJournal of